Forgive me if I asked this in the past...two docs that I respect have commented ( unasked by me) about the growth rate of cancer on the elderly. The geriatric oncologist said age has nothing to do with growth rate. A fast growing cancer will grow fast in anyone and a slow growing cancer will grow slowly in anyone, that made perfect sense to me . Then Wednesday I needed to take mom to pulmonologist...she's having chest pain again and the xray showed some fluid around the lung. When we discussed after I Asked if this was due to the cancer he said (looking at me like I was nuts) no! Okay ...then what is it...not sure and that's when he said as I said I'm fairly optimistic about your moms cancer....for some reason these grow slower in the older population. Since I was already deemed stupid I did not want to confront him with what the geriatric inc said and just took the prescription for the diuretic...hoping it's not the cancer or the heart....which both doctors of those fields claim it's not....
So I'm curious what the experts or more knowledgeable than myself know about this question
Thanks
Malki13
Reply # - September 14, 2014, 11:19 AM
Hi Malki13,
Hi Malki13,
Dr. Weiss has written two helpful posts on the subject of Stage IV lung cancer in the elderly:
http://cancergrace.org/lung/2011/09/25/stage-iv-non-small-cell-lung-can…
http://cancergrace.org/lung/2011/11/20/challenges-of-managing-elderly-p…
From the data he references in those posts, when fit elderly patients are treated with the same drug regimens as younger patients, the results are very similar. This would tend to indicate that your mom's oncologist is correct - that the biology of the cancer dictates whether it is indolent or aggressive, not the age of the patient.
JimC
Forum moderator
Reply # - September 14, 2014, 11:23 AM
It's not that being older
It's not that being older causes the cancer to go slower, but many older patients tend to have slower-growing cancers. A disproportionate number of elderly patients have cancers that require little intervention, so if it's unusually slow-growing and patients are likely to have a hard time tolerating treatment, it makes a compelling argument to do less rather than more.
Good luck.
-Dr. West
Reply # - September 14, 2014, 11:44 AM
Dr. West,
Dr. West,
Could it also be possible that because of their age and co-morbidities more elderly patients forgo treatment (or it is not recommended for them) and their good results are correctly attributed to an indolent cancer, while most younger patients who are treated and do well are assumed to do so because of that treatment, when they might have done just as well without it?
JimC
Forum moderator
Reply # - September 14, 2014, 06:19 PM
I think it's really that more
I think it's really that more older patients happen to have a truly slower growing cancer, which you can determine when there isn't any treatment to muddy the waters.
It's possible that more younger patients have indolent lung cancer than we've really appreciated, but we can't draw a firm conclusion because they're disinclined to accept no treatment, so we may credit the treatment when it was just the more favorable biology of the cancer after all.
-Dr. West