First, yes I am talking about a pet, but I'm sure the basic concept is the same in all species.
I know many of you have unfortunately dealt with cancer in some way or form with people or animals you love so maybe you can explain...
I finally got our cat in for a consult with the kitty oncologist since MH and I decided we should at least hear what they have to say. Unfortunately MH couldn't go and left me alone to do it and didn't have time to tell me what questions he had. So, the vet says that with no treatment she estimates about a year that she has left. With treatment it'd be 2.5 or so years.
This leads me to tell MH that I don't think its worth it -- money as well as a general what she'd go through -- though the vet insists cats don't get sick from chemo.
MH though doesn't understand why there is a time limit on the with treatment. He sort of thought it was a get treatment and then she lives as long as she would have otherwise. I tried to explain that that isn't the case. I mean, that's why my Grandma decided not to treat her final bout with cancer -- the gain wasn't worth it. But he doesn't understand why there is a prognosis for after treatment.
Can anyone explain this? (I told him to email the damn vet, but well...)
Re: Can anyone explain this? re cancer
i don't know this for sure about cats but i know in general chemo shortens your life expectancy vs if you didn't have cancer/didn't have chemo (follow me? because i don't
Some types of cancer, usually in the earlier stages (but stage is not the only factor), can be treated and cured by some means (chemo, radiation, surgery plus radiation/chemo). As cancer gets to later stages (i.e., it has spread and the extent of the spreading determines what stage it is), in some types of cancer, it is possible to halt the cancer, but not eradicate it completely due to where it has spread (for example, some organs in which there are few blood vessels do not respond to chemo as chemo is given and treated via IV methods), how it has spread, rate of tumor growth, etc. A lot of the stage issue relates to detection. For example, in the types of cancer you hear of people being diagnosed and not surving much soon afterwards, it is b/c the detection methods just aren't there to detect at an earlier stage. Perhaps if the cancer was caught earlier then the prognosis in those cases would be better. You can think about prostate cancer-there are very early detection methods for that type of cancer and if you catch it early the rate of cure is high, versus if you don't detect it until later, the rates of survival are low b/c by that point the cancer has spread and can no longer be eradicated.
My guess is that your cat (I am very sorry, btw) has a later stage cancer either that has spread or is in an organ where early detection is not yet possible.
Does that make sense?
BFP #2: 11/16/11: M/C at 7 weeks
BFP #3: 03/24/12: C/P 03/28/12
BFP #4: 04/26/12: please be our baby
There are a variety of reasons for this, and many studies done on people about it. The jist is as Lauren put in. Basically your DNA is unique and patterns of response to the same drug or combo of drugs are unique as well. I am surprised that your vet could make those assumptions without any treatment being done. (I am not an oncologist but play one on a marketing brand team LOL!)
Anyway me personally would say if you didnt care enough to go, and ask your questions them go call the doctor or get on google.
:-)
I didn't say he didn't care. I said he couldn't go. I was dealing with a dying cat. He was dealing with the MURDER of a human -- a kid at that. So whether or not he cares about the cat, there are some bigger priorities here.
Biochem, it makes some sense. Her cancer doesn't actually appear to have spread somewhere but our main vet had said they don't attempt to cure, only go into remission -- which is why they claim cats don't get sick from the chemo. They did say the cancer she has is particularly aggressive in cats.
I did try to ask the vet but she somewhat had this attitude of "well of course you'd get the chemo" and was a little hard to get answers from.
I tried to explain it to mh that it basically puts her in remission and he said "well wouldn't you just do chemo again when she gets sick again". ugh. I think your explanation is good for telling him why eventually that would fail. Thanks.
sorry I read it as he chose not to go.
I am not belittling his job I just thought I read he didnt want to go.
Thanks. We had the tumor removed but now its a matter of getting rid of what *might* have been there. That's one reason its so hard to get our minds around it. It'd be a little easier if you could look and say "she those cancer cells, that's what we are after". KWIM?
The real suggestion is to basically a mastectomy followed by chemo but 1) She has a heart condition that they feel makes the surgery really risky and 2) I don't think putting her through a major surgery is in her best interest regardless f the heart condition. The vet even said it was a terrible recovery and much more is removed than in a human.
In fact, textbook treatment is a double mastectomy but you can't even do that in a single surgery.
So, definitely no on the surgery, but chemo is still the wild card.