← Return to Aromatase Inhibitors: Did you decide to go on them or not?

Discussion
Comment receiving replies
@callalloo

Maybe but the doctors should not have assumed that because the Oncotype protocol, literature and even the results page that the doctor and patient receive clearly state otherwise. I'm a fairly diligent researcher when it comes to medical stuff, but someone else might have felt persuaded to have radiation based on a statistic that didn't apply. And Oncotype told me that they continue to hear of doctors who clearly still don't understand the limits of the test, including some that submit biopsy material to determine if surgery is called for. (Yikes.)

The breastcancer.org site was still wrong in its description of the OncotypeDX as of a month ago.

I swear there's no rest for the weary patient just trying to make sense of stuff. And
my permanent goal is to never be eligible for participation in any drug class action, or individual malpractice or negligence, lawsuits, lol.

Jump to this post


Replies to "Maybe but the doctors should not have assumed that because the Oncotype protocol, literature and even..."

I have relied on breastcancer.org for years. Can you share their mistaken description of the Oncotype Dx?

I am now curious. Does not having radiation after a lumpectomy change the odds of recurrence as reported by Genomic Health? What other variables are left out of the picture? For example, I had lymphovascular invasion, which is not considered, nor is type of breast cancer (ductal. lobular mixed etc. I had to be a little more skeptical of the low score I got due to grade 3 and lymphovascular invasion. If someone who theoretically needed radiation after lumpectomy., declines that treatment, it seems to me that a healthy skepticism about the low score might also be warranted. I don't really know.