This is a link to an Abstract in a Medical Journal, where some
doctors are discussing "aggressiveness in treating Stage IV colon
cancer".

http://tinyurl.com/2w4y9

It seems to me that the article shows a very different attitude when
it comes to how DOCTORS or PATIENTS view "aggressive therapy".

According to the statistics, if a stage IV patient does NOT have
his/her primary colon tumor removed, the survival time is approx 12.7
months.

If the patient DOES have the primary colon tumor removed, then the
survival jumps to 31.9 months (!!!)

Yet the doctors conclude, (and I quote!) "Whether to perform primary
tumor resection in patients with asymptomatic Stage IV colorectal
cancer remains controversial; however, the more aggressively we
perform radical resection and metastasectomy to selected patients,
the more survival benefits the patients obtain"

WHY is this so "controversial? I wonder where thinking along these
lines comes from. "They" seem to think that a gain in survival time
of almost TRIPLE (12.7 to 31.99 months) isn't really worth it???

This seems a very odd attitude to me. How many patients facing 12.7
months would be willing to undergo a little more risk in order to get
the HUGE increase in survival time? I certainly would...and I would
guess most other patients would feel the same.

And if the removal of a primary colon tumor generates such
controversy, how about other procedures (tending towards the "mild"
side) such as RFA or limited surgery on "distant" lymph nodes, which
might be able to bring equivalent gains in survival times (even if
not "potentially curative")? And how much thought do the doctors
really put into this - are patient feelings and views REALLY that
carefully considered?

I do not know! But when I see things like this, they really do make
me wonder....

Just a thought!

Best,

Keith