Stats..... so I was just thinking....

[dianetavegia]

We all know that Stats are always based on studies at least 5 years old. Just to verify, I googled/ bing'ed survival stats for colon cancer and see the reports are dated 2006 and 2007. Those studies were started 5 or more years prior to those papers being published. Let's say those studies were started in 2000.

PET scans have only recently become available to almost everyone. Actually, the PET scan was named invention of the year in 2000. That means all those people in the most current stats did NOT have PET scans to find cancer early. They did NOT have the newer chemos. Also, liver resection has become more common in the last 8 years BUT approximately only 20% of those with liver mets have HR today.

One report from 2004 said: 60% of colon cancer patients will have Liver metastases but only 10-20% of patients are candidates for surgery.

Again, no PET to find them early!

I believe the stats we will see in the next few years are going to show a much higher survival rate and much longer survival rates.

Thoughts?

[Badass]

I like your optimism...very uplifting!

[Val*pal]

Diane, I sincerely hope your theory is correct, and it may very well be. I've been amazed at the number of people who have had liver resections, and most seem to benefit.

[annalexandria]

PET scans really do make a big difference in outcomes, at least imo and based on my personal experience.
So this makes sense to me (and let's hope so).

[PGLGreg]

This is something we definitely need -- future oriented stats. Why didn't anyone think of this before? We must get beyond this fixation on the past that makes us count survivors of the last five years, when what we should really be looking at is survivors of the next five years. Researchers, get your heads out of the sand!

[mymom]

I completely agree...no question about it. I know too many stage iv that are surviving longer than 5 years. I hope mom is one of them!

[rp1954]

Early multimodal treatment is the key. The central problem is how to unleash existing, inexpensive technologies in a highly restricted marketplace with increasing regs. Also skillful avoidance of obsolete advice, opinion and "rules" is important.

Sequential blood tests and biomarkers are likely to "see" most new mets first. We just don't market available biomarker tests cheaply and efficiently, like $1-$2-$5 extra per marker, closer to incremental cost. We are billed as if old markers are rare and exhaustible heirlooms, instead of competitive pricing.

[ziggymonster]

I totally agree....I think the stats are outdated and trying to play catch up. In the days when medicine was not making many advances the stats made more sense. But in the last 10 years so much is advancing in modern medicine.

[Voxx66]

I think this is very true. The research oncologist I see has mentioned this numerous times. So yes, I think optimism has a well grounded basis in fact in this case.

[justin case]

Hi Diane,
My doc was adamant about PETs, I had 4 before I ever had a CT. I am hopeful that most of the stats are wrong. I cannot believe in this computer age, that more recent stats are not available, in fact, up to the minute
Warm regards,
Michael

[WorriedWife]

Hi Diane! I totally agree with you. I stopped using Google about 6 months after my hubby's dx because it became way too depressing and it's not anything close to what I was reading in the forums. I would rather discuss with real people, in real time than some dated chart and percentage somewhere that they aren't keeping up with. As we know among all of the people who get this horrid disease, everyone's outcome/treatment reaction is SO totally different. I've read for hours and hours in forums and articles in which I don't believe I've come across two of the same. The stats are just an old average and I don't pay attention to them because everyone is just so, so different. I've seen people with stage 2 advance to stage 4 and pass within a year and then I've seen stage 4 patients live for 15 years ...and more. I truly dislike outdated stats! Don't Google!!

[Lisahopes]

I hope you are right although the oncolologists don't seem to follow this thinking. If you are not resectable and Stage IV, I am not sure if much has changed in the past five years. The PET scans did not help my mom, who was diagnosed for the second time at Stage IV ( although all previous scans didn't show anything for almost 5 years after her Stage II diagnosis). Maybe we were just unlucky. I wish that a test were discovered that revealed tiny cancer molecules before scans could. I think that that would be a turning point.

[robinkaye]

Lisa, I think the circulating tumor cell test does just that, still relatively new, not a lot of doctors using it regularly.
Just google circulating tumor cell if you're interested in reading more. Agra with you though, without curtive nothing much has changed. The PET is great for identifying problem spots while still hopefully respectable. The workhorse of chemo has been around since the fifties. We need more research in immunotherapies, nano technologies, bio markers and a whole lot more of things that I can't pronounce.