PainInTheAss wrote:If it were me, I would do Xeloda, but that's mainly because I had almost no side effects so it was almost like not doing chemo. If there is even one more met still too small to be seen on a scan, I think it would be worth doing Xeloda. If chemo doesn't do much to circulating tumor cells, why does post surgery chemo have any benefit? I'm not seeing the logic here, but, then again, I'm not a doctor.
TXLiz wrote:How long do they say you should do chemo for, if you choose to take that route?
musicluvr wrote:Same here. One spot on one lung. All others shrank with Erbitux. Been on 3 month break, scan at end of July. Can't wait to hear recommendations if everything is still stable!
Maia wrote:Dan, IF you're not sure about doing chemo, one alternative would be doing an immunotherapy trial with a vaccine to prevent recurrence Immunotherapy trial for those NED: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=56485 A fellow on this board, Maellous, went recently for it, because he had a DPD deficiency --a problem to metabolize 5-FU, so chemo was not possible.
Someone who explored (is exploring) other alternative is Sophy, who underwent a very extensive resection of lung mets years ago and is doing Xeloda --at LOW dose-- plus a NSAID --ADAPT protocol, a total oral regimen-- during the almost 3 last years, as a measure to prevent recurrence viewtopic.php?f=1&t=57644&p=454418 The ADAPT aims to target the stem cancer cells, not the rapidly dividing cells. Otherwise, as PainInTheAss said, doing chemotherapy at the MTD --maximum tolerated doses--, without visible cancer, doesn't really make many sense --for certain literature. Low dose chemo acts more as immunomodulation than as cytotoxic.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], heiders33, Yahoo [Bot] and 45 guests