I wish it were as simple (in my experience) as Gail states it to be, that people with similar treatments respond with similar problems, or that those with positive attitudes (according to her nurses) generally do better. I find that contrary to reason, and what we know scientifically. If all it took were a positive attitude to have a better outcomes or fewer side effects, there are many friends no longer with us that I would still have around, and some of us who have survived to have done so with far fewer complications in the process. Some I know had unbelievable attitudes, were fighters, some of strong faith or of strong character, all positive in their expectations, yet are no longer here with us, or others (if survivors) spent many months longer in complication related treatment. One thing that can be said about people with a positive outlook from a clinical perspective is that they are usually more compliant with treatment protocols, and self care issues such as oral care, trismus prevention techniques, nutrition, etc. But compliance with complication preventing protocols definately does not yield fewer complications, this idea completely negates the fact that we are indeed biologically unique, and what works for one person will not work for another. Our body's response to the trauma of radiation as only one example, can be highly unique, and the degree of mucositis varies greatly in people getting the same cgy's of radiation. That has nothing to do with compliance, attitude or any other subjective issue, it is a biological difference. Does a great attitude allow some people to tolerate the SAME degree of discomfort with out complaint...definately. That could be misinturpreted by a caregiver or nurse as "fewer complications."

As to everyone having the same response to a particular treatment, if that were true, Gleevec, Irrissa, or other drugs which were highly effective in small groups of individuals, but not in others, would show consistent outcomes - not wide varieties of responses. Even in radiation treatments, some patients like Gary have a minimum of long-term consequences and others have chronic long-term issues with the same treatments. This forum and its participants find "commonalities" in their experiences and that is what makes the discussions of value. Commonalities can be clear-cut evidence based, or subjective, and either way they do not apply to every patient. That would deny that we are all genetically similar yet at the same time completely different. I do not doubt that Gail's husband can credit positive attitude with many reduced problems, He definatley worked every possible angle to minimize and overcome complications and side effects, this to no small extent was aided by having a tenatious caregiver (Gail), who wroked hard to search for the right questions and answers, and was an active part of getting her partner though the process.

Cancer does not lend itself to gross generalizations, whether they be by a patient, or a nurse or doctor at a major cancer center. I think that people need to consider that what professionals say, sometimes reflects what their subjective impressions are, or their isolated clinical experience leads them to believe. That may or may not be in alignment with what multi-center long-term standardized studies show.