rp1954 wrote:One of the problems that individual mCRC survivors have is the difficulty of their oncologists to lift the hood, so to speak, to work an individual's problems, and then reconcile these treatment actions with rather crude statistical recommendations often meted out today. A lot of veterans here know how deadly hamfisted the reigning medical statistical paradigm and average or standard practices can be.
Two early incidents with oncologists and pharmas in 2010, over their abuse of then allowed Avastin marketing (CRC stage 3s and paid breast cancer promotions), jaded my views of their intuitive analytical insight, independent judgement and reliability. Since then Avastin has demonstrated substantial efficacy in mCRC to extend lives, despite some Faustian bargain aspects. We went a different path and avoided Avastin despite a "favorable" molecular indictation on my wife's cancer biology.
Mattie's problem is that she has reached a degree of success and survival by a series of treatments that include Avastin, after a stage 4 diagnosis and several recurs. Each recur is dangerous even if discovered early and likely an increasingly difficult roll of the dice. However, we know that Avastin carries its own risks and side effects that may overbalance its benefits. She wants a better offer, a means off the ledge taking fewer risks - a protocol, a treatment or even an analytical improvement, rather than that simple leap of faith based on some crude statistics with a lot of people not enough like her.
Agree rp1954, This is exactly what I want.