Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Family members are always loving and there is no cure for cancer, even they know. but they will keep giving medical treatment to you. God bless you.
According to one of the leading cancer centers in the US, the Op's cancer has a 92% "cure" rate. That means that given the standard of care 92 out of a hundred patients will exhibit no signs of cancer five years later.
Status:
"Just livin' day by day"
(set 27 days ago)
Location: USA
3,166 posts, read 3,361,544 times
Reputation: 5382
I can understand your pain OP. I have Hepatitis C. I do know there are treatments out there that can cure it before the liver turns into cirrhosis. After that, it's too late. That being said, I refuse treatment, Society is obsessed with fixing people and living even if one is in a vegetative state in a coma for years. I on the other hand, rather just let nature take its course and live life without being "fixed" or hooked up to machines to keep me alive when I'm old or something awful happens.
According to one of the leading cancer centers in the US, the Op's cancer has a 92% "cure" rate. That means that given the standard of care 92 out of a hundred patients will exhibit no signs of cancer five years later.
Yes it is appropriate to have quotes around "cure". Five years isn't a magic number. I have no idea why they pulled that time period out of their hat. These people who have "battled" cancer for thirty years, have been
declared cancer free numerous times. The battle was just going on with life thinking they were cured.
Yes it is appropriate to have quotes around "cure". Five years isn't a magic number. I have no idea why they pulled that time period out of their hat. These people who have "battled" cancer for thirty years, have been declared cancer free numerous times. The battle was just going on with life thinking they were cured.
It's called five-year survival, not five-year cure. There is a difference between five years of survival and five years with no evidence of disease. However, for many/most cancers, five years with no evidence of disease is considered a cure because the odds of the cancer coming back after that length of time are slim.
And for the people who do have cancer multiple times over thirty years, I guess they preferred the option of treatments + 30 years of life over no treatment + 2 or 3 years of life.
Family members are always loving and there is no cure for cancer, even they know. but they will keep giving medical treatment to you. God bless you.
Sure there is.
Not all cancers can be cured but many can. Early stage kidney cancer is one of the cancers that can be cured, though it is not always.
I've been considered of my stage IV Hodgkin's lymphoma for 3 years, and have been cancer-free for 8. The term cure is used here because it is incredibly unlikely that one will relapse after 5 years and, at that point, it would basically be considered a different cancer. I would have died an incredibly painful death by age 25 had I not gone through the treatment that cured me. There are people who have lived 20, 30, and 40 years past their diagnoses who were also cured, and more will be cured every day thanks to treatments for my uncommon cancer that are new even since my diagnosis.
Yes it is appropriate to have quotes around "cure". Five years isn't a magic number. I have no idea why they pulled that time period out of their hat. These people who have "battled" cancer for thirty years, have been
declared cancer free numerous times. The battle was just going on with life thinking they were cured.
Where did you do your oncology residency? After all, if you have no idea why they "pulled that time period out of their hat" (hint) and seem to hold a disparaging view of that term, you must know more than my oncologist. He has his MD from Harvard Med, where he serves on the faculty, and trained at Dana-Farber and MGH by the way. Can you do better?
Yes it is appropriate to have quotes around "cure". Five years isn't a magic number. I have no idea why they pulled that time period out of their hat. These people who have "battled" cancer for thirty years, have been
declared cancer free numerous times. The battle was just going on with life thinking they were cured.
Quotes are around "cure" because that terminology is no longer in use but it is a viable shortened form of saying five years with no sign of cancer, meaning cancer-free. The same cancer may recur, other cancers may occur, but given the proper treatment 92% of patients will not have renal cell cancer in their bodies.
I just read an article about the actor Cameron Mathison having kidney cancer. He had an operation to take the tumor out and after 3 months post op he's doing fine and there is no sign of cancer in his kidney. Tumor was removed before it was able to spread to other parts of his body. So I read up on the treatment and this kind of cancer is very treatable.
I just read an article about the actor Cameron Mathison having kidney cancer. He had an operation to take the tumor out and after 3 months post op he's doing fine and there is no sign of cancer in his kidney. Tumor was removed before it was able to spread to other parts of his body. So I read up on the treatment and this kind of cancer is very treatable.
At only three months it is much to soon to declare he is cancer free. I hope that the surgery got rid of it all permanently for him but cells can hide for a long time. He said it had probably been growing there for about ten years before diagnosis, and he had to convince his doctor to order the MRI that found it. It pays to be assertive.
It seems like almost every cancer has high survival rates these days. I always take cancer stats with a very large pinch of salt.
It also tells me little about the quality of life of those people. I've seen people live with cancer for 5 years - months and months of not being able to do anything due to the side effects, in and out of hospital, completely dependent on the care of others.
I can understand your decision. You've weighed the costs vs. the benefits, I suppose. I am 75 and never expected to lived this long. I am having a situation with my thyroid, among other things, and have been avoiding a biopsy (I have a very large nodule on the thyroid plus my test results show problems). I don't want to find out if I have cancer. I'm finally going to a doctor I trust who has a fabulous reputation and I am pretty sure she'll want a biopsy and at this point I'm willing to take it. But the question is, what do I do if it turns out to be cancer? I am very reluctant to go for unpleasant treatment. So time will tell. But I do understand your decision and wish you the best.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
