We’re hoping we have some time before we need to move on from the last viable oral targeted therapy my wife is currently on, but having backup plans in place gives us comfort. I greatly value the insight of everyone on this forum and it’s no exaggeration to say that the combined wealth of knowledge here rivals if not exceeds that of any of our current caregivers who are invaluable to us but they are stretched thin and only human.
So my question is this, as we’ve become conditioned to eliminate targeted therapies with similar mechanisms of action from future consideration after they fail, I’m struggling to find a clear answer as to whether that line of thinking applies to more conventional chemo.
In other words, if IV Taxol was used pre-MBC and it seemed to work well after surgery and radiation (resulted in NED for ~5 years) does it remain a viable option for MBC after all targetted therapies are exhausted? Or are different IV chemos considered preferable? I can see arguments for both, but I just can’t find any studies on this.
We of course plan to discuss this with our providers to get their perspectives but heading into those discussions with an informed opinion based on advance research has helped guide our treatment decisions in the past in greater ways than one would think.
This would not seem to be such a unique circumstance so if anyone has any thoughts or experiences with this I would greatly appreciate your feedback.