|Oncology-Donna Kently, PA-LOVE her!|
I was given two different chemotherapy options. The first one is the tried and true used for many years combination of Adriamycin and Paclitaxel (Taxol). Adriamycin in particular has some pretty nasty potential side effects. Potential heart damage, higher instances of leukemia, uterine cancer, etc. Ummm...not too appealing. You also have to have it infused through a port implanted under the collar bone so they have access to a main artery since it's too toxic to adminster intravenously. It's given every two weeks for four months. Sounds lovely! Like I said, it's been used with great success for many years.
The second option is a combination of Taxotere and Cyclophosphamide. This little cocktail has been used for five or six years with similar success but with less potential for long term side effects. It also can be given intravenously every three weeks for three months, so a shorter period of time.
Now, any reasonable person would think "why not do the option 2?" which happens to be what my doctor recommended. Seems like a no brainer. Here's what my issue is; when I asked Dr. Nguyen why everyone doesn't do TC, she couldn't really answer other than to say "physician bias". I wanted her to say it in a way that made ME BELIEVE it was the best choice for me.
I know they can never give absolutes, but help me out here. Tell me I'm the perfect candidate for TC and based on stats I'll do wonderful. Don't just tell me that you prefer it with no explanation. If it's been used for many years with success, should I go with the Adriamycin? Or do I go with the one that doesn't look like it will damage my heart and give me another kind of cancer but they don't have many years of results to look at? If anyone can help me out on this, that would be great!