FINDING CHEMO

I'm back from a relaxing weekend up in the mountains where I proved that lifting liam, while "legal," has its consequences. That's ok. It's worth it.
Friday saw me receiving a radioactive boob woman power booster with a bone scan, EKG, ecocardiogram and chest xray. All of these tests (along with a lot of blood work drawn earlier) were to establish a baseline for the chemo, and to check off all of the prerequisites to potentially join a drug trial.
My next step is to select an oncologist, chemo regimen and schedule. I have met with 2 oncologists-- You'll be happy to hear (I was) that the second one I met with didn't agree with the metastasis risk calculated in the "SMI" as discussed earlier, but also had a lower efficacy percentage for chemotherapy... We didn't get into specific numbers, which is good, but the result was the same: The most aggressive chemo is my best option, and statistics help define the path, but don't determine the outcome.
Both doctors recommended the "dose dense" AC (Adromycan/Cytoxan) every 2 weeks x 4 rounds [You have to love the prospect of getting injected with something that has the name "toxan" included] + Taxol every 2 weeks x 4 rounds (16 weeks total). From what I understand the "dose dense" (before they did it once every three weeks) potentially is better at killing cancer, but not for the faint of heart (literally) as there is small risk of congestive heart failure... but very small for young, healthy folks (yeah! finally, something good about being so young!).
Drug trials: I have the options of entering the "NSABP B-38" (catchy name, no?) research study in which I would be randomized into one of three arms: 1) the option listed above; 2) the option listed above plus the trial drug Gamzor; or 3) the three drugs included in option 1) given all together (TAC) once every 3 weeks for 6 rounds. We were told that option 3) is considered equivalent to 1) and is preferred by about 35% of doctors (but neither of the ones I talked to). I originally thought "what the heck" about the drug trial, until the oncologist last week said the TAC option is more toxic (hence the 3 weeks between I guess), a fact conveniently left out by the first oncologist. Hmmm.
I also may have the option of joining a different trial that includes option 1) plus a drug called Avartin (sorry if I'm spelling these wrong, but I can't read the doctors writing) The Av drug is not a chemo drug, but a new type of approach that has been shown to enhance the success of chemo drugs with few side effects. It would be great if I could get in this trial, but it's a question of timing, and I'm not sure it will work out. Could I get the Av drug without the trial? Not really, because it hasn't been shown to be effective yet (hence the trial) and costs $150,000.
Speaking of drug costs, the Neulasta injections that I will be getting (at least every round) to increase my white blood cell counts cost over $6,000 per injection. From what I understand, while people who are un/underinsured can get the chemo drugs, they can't get the Neulasta.
So tomorrow I meet with Dr. Data (oncologist #1) again to go over all of the lab tests. Dr. Data has the advantage of the best reputation and a sole focus on breast cancer (to the point he's known as "Dr. Breast"-- how's that for a title to impress people at college reunions?) However, right now I'm leaning toward the other doctor, for several reasons: She seemed more realistic about the side effects, I think she sees me as a person rather than a piece of data, she didn't dismiss ideas that weren't her first choice out of hand, and her office is within walking distance of my house. But again, we learned different (and useful) things from both doctors, to the point that either way I'm confident I'll be getting great care.
Mostly I'm just ready to get things scheduled and move onto this next step.
But first, I get to go to MEXICO :)