As a brief recap, due to finding a mass in the right side of abdomen during a CT Scan 2 weeks or so ago, the surgical board met and reviewed the scans and determined that the surgeon is able to remove the mass (1cm x 3cm), but they want to have a PE Scan done tomorrow and review the scans to make sure that is the only cancer detected and everywhere else from head to shins are clear. It's not clear whether it includes the brain or just up to where the spin and skull meet.
Provided the PET Scan comes back clear everywhere except the right side of abdomen (same as CT Scan), a meeting will take place with the surgeon to discuss the situation and plan of action for surgery (remothe mass from abdomen). The oncologist is not talking about chemo treatments afterwards.
She doesn't seem to believe going back to FOLFOX chemotherapy will be an option, because the fact that another mass has formed some 3 years later seems to indicate to her that this recurrence brings a more resistant cancer and the same FOLFOX regimen won't work.
I'm skeptical about this because I've heard of people who originally were diagnosed with colon cancer, had operations, had 6 months or so of chemo, and years later found a met in the liver, had an operation to remove it and have been on maintenance chemo ever since.. and it's been over 10 years+ total since original diagnosis, operation and chemo for them and they are doing well.
If the PET Scan tomorrow _does_ pick up something else, I'm not sure where options that leaves... as it complicates matters, depending on what it picks up and where.
So I have a few questions:
1. Is it true that if you were on FOLFOX for initial chemo treatments and there's a recurrence that it means FOLFOX will not be effective on a second time around several years later? What about other, newer chemo drugs?
2. If there is a recurrence, does that automatically mean the cancer comes back even more aggressively and rapidly than the initial colon cancer several years earlier, dealt with using surgery and chemo?
3. The oncologist also mentioned about 10% of people qualify for an immunotherapy because of a certain protein. She said if after removing the mass and with close monitoring thru blood tests and scans in the months ahead, if something else appears, we could opt for immunotherapy.
But I'm wondering - Why can't they put you into immunotherapy after a recurrence and a surgery to remove the mass from the recurrence? Why wait and monitor, knowing there could be microscopic cancer floating around in your blood? Does immunotherapy not attack those or are they too small?
4. What is the current state of immunotherapy and how successful is it so far? If you respond to immunotherapy, does that mean you're in the clear? or is it possible for cancer cells to become immune to that therapy too?
Thanks in advance for any information regarding the above that you can share!