nmorgen wrote:I am curious as to what the “ more comprehensive blood data” is.
I did go back and look at Starbuck30 profile and what her fiancé posted. I’m still not sure what actually happened or why. Obviously her cancer must have been very aggressive. I didn’t see where her grade was posted. Isn’t the grade suppose to give an idea at how aggressive the cancer is? Honestly what happened to her is very scary.
Starbuck is a belatedly recognizable Olymphian, apparently unknown until scanned ~6 weeks after her 12 Folfox cancer treatments for her symptoms, then going on a short fuse. As a nominal stage IIIC colon cancer patient at surgery, she had had no Avastin or extra chemistries either. The Olymphian threads have been mostly quiet for several years but patients with lymph nodes should consider what we have seen cumulatively since 2010.
One of the other graphic Olymphian overviews, was from Buckwirth, a rectal cancer patient diagnosed about the same day as my wife. Buckwirth tried to follow standard schedules of EBM, with some slippage. Again, untreated natural growth intervals and likely inflammation driven periods post treatment(s), showed rapid growth.
One of the things we saw with my wife's mets, dominated by an initial para aortic LN cluster remaining after first surgery, was that CEA took off with a rapid doubling time (14 - 30 days) when even one critical chemo component dropped too low. This happened several times over the years and was often harder to beat down, requiring chemical changes or surgery. My guiding principle was to pursue medical literature that suggested higher therapeutic index when personalized and combined in a continuous multicomponent formulation, for more cancer effect, less (negative) side effects and more side benefits - logically focused on safer versions of nutraceuticals (natural molecules and foods) and milder drugs.
One largely unanswered question that I asked right off the bat in 2010 was whether there was a (potential) crossover from conventional cyclical treatments (Folfox, Folfiri) to continuous chemo treatment (non standard). In retrospect now, standard oncology's greatest trials nearest to this question seems to have been with the basic ADAPT protocol, continuous daily chemo only for 1-2+ years intervals, sometimes several intervals, lower dose failures, no +++, no chronomodulation.
Because of our prior presurgical success with off label neoadjuvant immune treatment and off label chemistries (+ then ++ postsurgery, then +++ well into chemo, 1-3 years), and some important inferences vs conflicted statements, we chose to emphasize continuous treatment, what might be called UFT++ initially, growing out to UFT-LV +++ very analogous to what we are calling ADAPT+++, here with Xeloda.