I know a lot of us are on adjuvant chemo. I'm curious about your regimens & how you came to choose them, especially if they involve biologicals where long-term PFS and OS data is obviously not yet available.
I had 6 rounds of neo-adjuvant Folfox with Erbitux and am now doing 8 rounds of exactly the same combination. (I know I'm an advanced case, but 14 rounds of oxi in all seems daunting. Among other things, I'm hoping my liver & my nervous system can take it.)
My onc seemed perfectly willing to consider switching my biological from Erbitux to Avastin. Erbitux attacks the EGFR pathway and Avastin goes after the VEGF, and switching would give my cancer a new look. We decided against doing that, however, mainly because it seemed like I was still responding to Erbitux before surgery. Sir Onc wants to maximize the benefit from that regimen & I guess I do, too (though on some level it feels, ahem, like a rash decision).
So here's a question I have not seen much discussed in the research: what considerations come into play in the strategy for choosing chemo to fight microscopic disease in the absence of visible solid tumors? Most studies don't seem to make any major oncological distinction between the situations -- "solid tumor plus microscopic disease" vs. "microscopic disease only" -- and perhaps none is to be made. Still, when you're going after an enemy that flies under the PET and CT radar, it seems like a different situation that might call for different approach.