What Is The Difference Between

Avatar Image
Barsel | 17:06 Thu 06th May 2021 | Body & Soul
18 Answers
Chronic lymphocytic leukaemia and bone cancer. Is the treatment, symptoms, prognosis the same? TIA


1 to 18 of 18rss feed

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by Barsel. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Chronic lymphocytic leukaemia is one kind of blood cancer or bone cancer if you prefer.
The treatment and prognosis varies with the different types of blood cancer.
CLL begins in the bone marrow then enters the blood and travels.

I can't answer the rest of your question.
completely different
one you can look up (CLL)

the other is a loose phrase that needs more details - latiny word etc. Someone had just died from bone cancer ( famous and old) and that covers a dustbin of possibilities
yeah but no but sqad
bone cancer covers myeloma, secondaries and osteosarcoma
all very different
Question Author
I did read that Chris, but I've just realised bone cancer would be of different types, as PP has pointed out and the one I was interested in is bone metastasis which started in the breast.
One of my friends has CLL and another has the bone cancer.
I wanted to understand more about both, so I can understand when they talk to me about it.
Question Author
Both of my friends are 74 yrs old, could they both expect to live for at least another 5 years or does it depend on other factors?
CLL......difficult to say, varies from 90% chance of living 5 years to 25% chance living for five years.

Breast cancer with bone secondaries 15% chance of living 1 year.

These are just statistics.
Sorry, my mistake, breast cancer has a 1year survival rate of 50% NOT 15%.
One of the things they kept hammering into patients like me (with prostate cancer, which has spread to my lymph nodes and bones) at Ipswich Hospital is that secondary cancer in one's bones is not the same as bone cancer, per se. So it seems that it's pointless reading up on bone cancer if it's actually not the primary cancer itself.
The figures are just that....statistics and many factors are involved BUT it shows that blood cancers have a much better prognosis than bone cancers when the are the result of spread from another organ (metastasis).
Blood cancer survival measured over5 years,whereas bone secondaries measured over 1 year.
Question Author
I do find it a bit hard to understand, all I can tell you is my friend had breast cancer and a mastectomy over 10 years ago, and now she has been diagnosed with bone cancer which I think is where the metastasis comes into it. Her treatment is a Denosumab injection, Ibrance and Letrozole. I was hoping to hear she will live a lot longer than 1 year.
The outlook for your friend is not good.
I will reiterate ,STATISTICALLY someone who has developed bone secondaries from breast cancer has a 50% chance of living ONE year.....but a 50% chance of living longer than one year. Survival rates usually with cancers are usually calculated over 5 years, but the prognosis is so bad with bone secondaries from breast cancer that so few survive 5 years(if any)that survival rates are just not justifiable or meaningful for more than a year,

BUT these are statistics and in Medicine it is quite common that human response doesn't comply with statistics, humans,with their problems are individuals.
That is why it twists my guts to see questions answered on Body and Soul with a bloody website link.
I hope that this has helped you to understand your friends situation.
Question Author
Thank you sqad. It does trouble me a lot to know these statistics, but I just have to hope she will manage to fight the odds as she has been my best friend for nearly 70 yrs and I can't imagine not having her in my life. Thank you again for taking the time to explain it to me.
I understand.
-- answer removed --
age is important
how old is the patient
me auld mam had ca breast at age - around 80
orange sized lump in the armpit
look you neednt have ignored this stuff

and it became obvious that talking about living for 5 y to an 80 y may have - - - altered meaning in that their expectancy is less than 5 y on a good day

it is how much quicker they die than their cohort
this is the standardised mortality ratio
SMR = 1 is cure = dying at the same rate as the reference population

when I looked it up for me aud mam ( see above )
tamoxifen alone was the best followed by tamox and lumpectomy which she went for, and had SMR of 1.25
She lasted a few years.
80 is not young
god more than you ever want to know about Palbciclib

50% survive 36 mo - this is median and NOT average survival time and so yes it looks like she has a good chance of surviving more than a year. This paper seems to be treating patietns alot younger than 70

1 to 18 of 18rss feed

Do you know the answer?

What Is The Difference Between

Answer Question >>