ovarian cancer

[christine847]

my dear friend has been diagnosed with oc ..after 5months of her being treated for a gallstone.
two weeks ago she had biopsies(sp) taken and is to start chemo next week.....if that does not work she will then be operated on.
my question is why do the hospitals do it that way round ,surely it would be better for my friend to have every thing removed now ,rather than wait 6 months when she will be considerably weaker?
helpful answers please

[sara3]

I'm sorry, that's sad news. it sounds sensible to remove all the "iffy" bits to me, but your ovaries produce useful hormones for general well-being, so I guess they will leave them be if that's the best option.

evidently, I'm not a doctor.. but I wish your friend well.

[christine847]

thank you sara 3

[hippyhoppy]

I think the chemo, whilst making your friend feel poorly, shrinks the tumor and therefore is a less invasive operation. (Don't quote me) My mum has had breast cancer, which leads to 'secondary' ones and she has back and stomach and is currently awaiting outcomes on x-rays.. but she doesn't tell me everything as she thinks I'm better off not knowing - which by the way I'm not as my sister, who lives near her (I'm 200 miles away) gets chapter and verse and then spills to me, making me feel useless being so far away - anyhoo - end of non-uplifting thread!! Sorry....

[Ice.Maiden]

Sorry to hear of your friend's illness christine. I can only assume that she needs the chemo asap, as cancerous cells can move elsewhere. If the treatment doesn't work, then I assume they'll try other methods. If she had her ovaries removed first, there's also time wasted whilst she recovers from the op before chemo could start. There's no reason why she can't recover from this dreadful thing though, and hopefully she will. Her consultant'll be able to answer any of her questions.

[christine847]

thanks hippyhoppy and iceyx

[hippyhoppy]

Not actually sure I helped a great deal there - sorry..