28 June 2016

It's Not Quite Sophie's Choice

I met with my cancer doctor today. Keeping in mind my cancer is not (at this point in time) curable, and will come back no matter what treatments I do, he gave me a choice:

(Time periods are not exact; rather, presented in round numbers to make the issue more clear.)

I can bump up my chemo to aggressively treat my cancer for about six total months (I've already done three). This brings with it the considerable side effects (most notably exhaustion, and the foot and leg swelling). I would then get off the chemo for about six months before I have to resume; or

I can continue the low-dose "maintenance" chemo for about a year. This choice comes with almost no side effects and gives me a better “quality of life.” I would then be off about six months before resuming.

Because my cancer is technically “in remission” and being treated well with drugs, I am (probably) not a candidate for the T-cell transplant (the benefits of which would only last a year or so anyway, then I would need to resume the chemo).

Which choice do you think would be better?

No comments: