What were breast cancer treatments in the 1990s and how are they different to to!
Question: All of the above are advances, with one exception: testing the tumor for sensitivity to chemotherapy before being given the drug is not standard yet- the technology for it has long been in the making and has not been well-received so far by the majority of the cancer community. It is a work in progress though and will be I believe a very useful tool in the future. Also, mammosite radiation is not for everyone, but is great when you qualify for it.
Many of the same drugs then are still in use now; we do use them in different combinations and sequence. We also have newer, more selectively targeted agents (such as trastuzumab or Herceptin) that have made a HUGE impact. Also, newer hormonal therapies after tamoxifen have improved cure rates as well.
Our supportive care drugs are much better, such that we have greatly improved anti-nausea therapy and drugs to prevent such drastic effects on the blood counts/immune system-- we can get better though.
Most importantly, though, is we are getting better every few years in being able to pick out the women who actually need chemotherapy, saving those who don't the exposure. We are slowly learning the genetic profile of tumors which have a strong propensity to metastasize and which are sensitive to chemotherapy.
Answers: All of the above are advances, with one exception: testing the tumor for sensitivity to chemotherapy before being given the drug is not standard yet- the technology for it has long been in the making and has not been well-received so far by the majority of the cancer community. It is a work in progress though and will be I believe a very useful tool in the future. Also, mammosite radiation is not for everyone, but is great when you qualify for it.
Many of the same drugs then are still in use now; we do use them in different combinations and sequence. We also have newer, more selectively targeted agents (such as trastuzumab or Herceptin) that have made a HUGE impact. Also, newer hormonal therapies after tamoxifen have improved cure rates as well.
Our supportive care drugs are much better, such that we have greatly improved anti-nausea therapy and drugs to prevent such drastic effects on the blood counts/immune system-- we can get better though.
Most importantly, though, is we are getting better every few years in being able to pick out the women who actually need chemotherapy, saving those who don't the exposure. We are slowly learning the genetic profile of tumors which have a strong propensity to metastasize and which are sensitive to chemotherapy.
There are new developments all the time - but local doctors need to keep up with them. A radical mastectomy with all the lymph nodes being taken was the rule - that changed to doing lumpectomy if the tumor was not too big. Now the breast is treated with dye that will reach the lymph nodes - so only the first 3 (sentinel) or so are removed and tested. Patients are tested to see if the chemo drugs will have any effect before they start therapy (everyone got the same stuff before). Radiation was administered externally - causing damage to the surrounding tissue and organs - now a "mamosite" balloon can be used with high doses of radiation over a 1 week period.
My sister was treated in the 1990's and I was treated in 2004, both for breast cancer.
The main differences we noticed were the drugs used and the number of options available.
My sister had a radical mastectomy, axcilllary node clearance and radiation and chemo for a fairly small tumour.
I had a much larger tumour, treated with lumpectomy, axcillary node clearance, radiation and chemo.
I was told that if my tumour had been smaller (about the size of my sisters) I would only have had a sentinal node removed with the lumpectomy.