Good news

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6667313.stm

I was on Zoladex for the standard two years and have been castigating myself
for being a whimp because I took that option rather that chemo. My onc at
the time was pretty neutral as to whether or not I should have chemo and I
decided against it.

Another onc later down the line commented that they were beginning to think
that the reason chemo worked was that it shut down the ovaries and added:
"... but that's a hell of a way to shut down the ovaries!"

Seems I may have made the right decision.


María

"María" <noemail@xyznothing.me.uk> wrote in message
news:ybqdnSYUY7MQu9LbnZ2dnUVZ8v6dnZ2d@bt.com...
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6667313.stm
>
> I was on Zoladex for the standard two years and have been castigating
> myself for being a whimp because I took that option rather that chemo.
> My onc at the time was pretty neutral as to whether or not I should have
> chemo and I decided against it.
>
> Another onc later down the line commented that they were beginning to
> think that the reason chemo worked was that it shut down the ovaries and
> added: "... but that's a hell of a way to shut down the ovaries!"
>
> Seems I may have made the right decision.
>

Hey, what works, works! I'm glad you're still doing great.

I have to admit, I'm curious about what your onc said, because (1) chemo
doesn't always shut down the ovaries permanently, particularly in younger
women; and (2) the stats I've seen suggest that the greatest gains from
chemo are in younger women. Parochially, also, I'd like to believe I
didn't go through chemo for no reason <g>!

On the other hand, I took the chemo, and am still here 6-1/2 years after
stage III diagnosis . . . so I guess what works, works <gg>.

Thanks for sharing the good news, Maria!

Ann T.
Remove 'dontsendspam' from address to reply by email