CTS5 Online Test for determining if only five years of hormone therapy is okay instead of ten

Yes I know @Lynn65 that's how I read it. Depressing isn't it? And of course the mets treatment is an AI anyway a lot if the time. 

Hi @primek that’s very interesting.  Am I reading this right — that endocrine therapy only has an impact on local recurrence and other breast recurrence, but that it does zip for reducing the risk of distant mestastes?  That seems like an important point to just elide over in all the material about the benefits of endocrine therapy!  

And the second one... so whether you take an aromatise inhibitor treatment for a longer period or not, you are just as likely to die, but perhaps without a recurrence in either breast?  

The first thing kind of explains the second one, I guess.   Urgh.

I agree with @kmakm
On the research I read the endocrine therapy was only beneficial for local recurrence or locally advanced ...nodes and preventing contralactal breast cancer. It didn't make any difference in reduction of distant mestastes it seems. 

Updated guideline recommendations

The updated guidelines are based on the results of six large trials looking at whether taking an aromatase inhibitor for more than 5 years offered additional benefits. The studies found that extended aromatase inhibitor treatment didn’t seem to improve overall survival, but it did significantly reduce the risk of breast cancer recurrence and the risk of breast cancer developing in the opposite breast.

Here's the full article. It's all doing my head in really.

https://www.breastcancer.org/research-news/asco-recommends-extended-hormonal-tx-for-some

The questions it asks seem too few and too simple to me. BC is just so much more complex than that tiny slice of information. Layperson opinion though.

A lot more I'd also like to know, such as the effect of neoadjuvant chemo response on the score, but very interesting. I've long said that my oncologist would have a lot of convincing to do to convince me to stay on it beyond 5 years. 3 & 1/2 years ago, the evidence just wasn't there. It's a bit better now, but I really want to know that the benefits will outweigh the risks. Having gone from pretty good bone density to mid range osteopaenia in 16 months, I'd question that it will

Good point @Sister

It is interesting but I wonder whether the results factor in different sub-types of bc.  Certainly, from a quick scan of the article it appears not to but that could just be what is being reported. 

Interesting