How is Elizabeth Edwards' cancer INCURABLE? What about clinical trials? And look @ Lance Armstrong!?

Question

Call me an idealistic fool, but ever since Elizabeth Edwards revealed her cancer recurrance was now "incurable", I've been confused. How can ANY cancer be called "incurable" in this day and age, where clinical trials are available everywhere? Also, what does "treatable but incurable" really mean? Will she still evetually die of her disease?

I know of folks who were told they were TERMINAL, so since they had nothing to lose, they enrolled in trials that carried some risk, but also a chance at cure. And some WERE cured! Is Elizabeth even considering enrolling in a trial? It seems she too, has nothing to lose, if her cancer truly is considered incurable by "regular" doctors (i.e. those not researching trials).

ALSO, what about Lance Armstrong? His testicular cancer metastisized to his liver, lungs and even his brain!! That basically wrote him off as DEAD -- but look at how many years he's been cancer-free!

Now you see why Elizabeth's statement doesn't make sense to me. Your thoughts?

jano -- thanks for your kind words about my optimism. :) Sometimes folks make fun of me for being optimistic (not just about diseases, but about most things in life). I don't care if anyone makes fun of me, because I prefer to follow the quote from ancient Roman writer Publius Terentius Afer:

"While there's life, there's hope!" :)

Before I choose a "Best Answer", I first want to say I wish I could give FOUR of you that distinction: jano, Gawaine R, hanora, and Tarkarri -- you each deserve it!! :) But "there can be only one."

I also wanted to give my sincere best wishes to those who have battled cancer or lost a loved one to it. Cancer has touched someone in my family too -- fortunately it was caught early, it was not aggressive, and that loved one is now 5+ years free and clear! :) I wish the same success for everyone!

Answer 1

Few cancers are truely "curable".

Some cancers spread faster than others, some grow faster than others, some do both.

Treatments attack cancers in 3 ways, surgery to remove cancerous tissue, chemotheratoy and radiation to kill cancerous cells, sometimes to slow growth, sometimes to reduce growth and sometimes to kill stray cells to help prevent recurrance.

All of these treatments have side effects.

With some cancers, the best we can hope for with treatments available is to slow growth of the cancer, given the side effects, this is then a balancing act between quantity and quality of life.

In my case, surgery , chemo and radiation were going to make me feel like cr@p for 6 months, but with good odds that I would have a long, cancer free life afterwards. I decided this was worthwhile.

If I knew that the same treatment may have given me a only a few months or years longer, with cancer never fully gone, I probably wouldn't have bothered.

Stage 4, metastatic breast cancer falls into the category of holding or reducing, but will always be hovering in the background. However, knowing this, Dr's will be monitoring regularly and treating whenever it flares up again.

Answer 2

Every cancer is different, and gender affects the way people respond to the same cancer. Age also matters (a whole lot).
A cancer that recurs is a stubborn one, one that has probably already spread to other organs.
A cancer is incurable if it can't be reached by surgery - such as a cancer buried deep in the brain, or a spinal cancer (the spinal cord cannot be removed, and it doesn't tolerate being poked at too well). Cancers can also be incurable if they are too far advanced - advanced colon cancer for example is really awful. I worked as a nurse for 9 years and saw plenty of people die from cancer.
Clinical trials are not necessarily easy to get into. They usually only have room for 25 people at a time or so, and trials are strictly regulated by the FDA. This is both a good thing and a bad thing. Good, because a lot of con artists are willing to sell you snake oil and pretend it has already cured lots of cancer victims. Bad, because potentially useful drugs spend a long time in trials. People are going to die of something, and it's inevitable that some of them will die of cancer.

Answer 3

Just to give you an example... my mother had leukemia and bone marrow cancer. Basically, she had cancer of the blood and bone. Cancer of the blood and bone are not curable at least not in the type she had. Those kinds of cancers were inoperable, and she could not even have any kind of chemo or radiation that would have caused a cure in her condition. However, her condition was treatable with medications and blood transfusions but they were not given as a means for a cure but to help her live a little longer and better quality of life until the cancer took over and she passed away. So, you see some cancers are not curable. They can be treated for the duration of time a person can live up until the body cannot fight any longer and the person thus passes away. Hope I have helped you understand.

Answer 4

Lance Armstrong had testicular cancer. This form of cancer simply is more treatable and responds better to chemotherapy.

Mrs. Edwards has breast cancer that is widely metastatic. This is incurable, unfortunately.

Clinical trials are essentially tests of a new product, like a chemotherapy, that has newly been developed. There are no guarantees to efficacy. Despite major advances in cancer treatment, some cancers are quite difficult to treat. The truth of the matter is... if you are assigned to a clinical trial, you may be assigned to the portion of the trial that is giving the usual doses of chemotherapy. You could essentially be getting the "normal" treatment, not the "experimental" stuff. And not everybody qualifies for a trial. And there may be no new medication for the specific cancer being tested at the time of illness.

Anyway, your optimism is refreshing. However, the truth of the matter is, frankly, that Mrs. Edwards' cancer is incurable.

Answer 5

I've had breast cancer twice. Currently I have no evidence of active disease, but I am not cured nor am I in remission - neither term applies. I did not have metastases as Ms. Edwards does. Those metastases may be able to be contained, even irradicated, but that is not a cure.

Clinical trials are just that - trials, and she may well be participating in one or more. Most of them are variations on current treatments that lead to minor improvements in survival or moderation of side effects. Clinical trials of therapies that lead to "cures" are rare, so rare that books are written about them. Example: "The Making of Herceptin" which isn't a cure but a significant improvement in the odds of survival for a longer period.

Her statement makes perfect sense to me.

I know nothing about Lance Armstrong or testicular cancer.

Answer 6

If cancers (many kinds) were all curable,no one would be dying from it and thousands are so there are incurable ones. Pancreatic cancer is short term but few survive it but seems I heard a pancreas can be transplanted. Trouble is your life is spent on drugs for the duration of your life and can have very bad side effects. She is dealing with it as best she can.

Answer 7

Well it all depends on how much money you have and what you can afford to have done. When cancer metastasizes to bone it is almost impossible to treat and that is what has happenend in Elizabeth Edwards. In some cases it can be treated but very rarely.

Answer 8

on the CBS early show on monday 8-27-07 in the morning they are interviewing john kanzius who invented a machine that KILLS CANCER

Answer 9

you never really get cured of cancer it just goes into remission. There is always a chance it can come back.