So glad that Bailey is doing better--it's so hard to decide what to do. I felt like you-I wanted to do 6 rounds of carbo--my husband was the one that said, "Joan, it's time to stop." He went on to emphasize his point even more, and he made me realize that it was too much for Lily. She was so exhausted and didn't have her usual voracious appetite. I knew he was right, and we stopped. I was so glad that I did--she just couldn't handle anymore. I'm glad you are talking to CSU; I called several times, and they were very helpful. I know that you will make the right decision. For me, the obsessing and second guessing was difficult. Once I made the decision to stop, I knew in my heart of hearts that it was right.

Take care,

Joan and Lily

Have you tried feeding her on another surface?  Like a ceramic or glass bowl vs stainless steel vs the floor?

In a way, I don't have any more information regarding chemo options than you or anyone else.  I have the original scientific paper that our oncos *supposedly* refer to.  I hope they've all read it, but I know what it's like to be bombarded with sci articles all the time.  Sometimes all they read is the abstract and listen to what their peers advise....

That said, I read it and have a list of questions for the lead author.  I sent the email a few weeks ago and haven't heard anything.  I may not, and I get that.  Some major notes from the study:

- it doesn't matter which chemo option your pet got as far as survival rates/times go.  Side effects mattered, though. Some options were tougher than others. (We know this and since Bailey is already on a plan, you wouldn't change anyway.)

- it does matter if your pet dropped out of chemo!  Dropout rates are nearly 50% and that can be b/c of mets, costs, side effects, etc.  Sticking with it and completing the chemo protocol made a diff in survival times.  (Bailey has stuck with it and hasn't dropped out, so that's SUPERB!!!!)

- there was no statistical difference between the pups that completed 4 or 6 rounds of carbo: 325 days survival time vs 390.  There was no statistical diff.  That could be, though, b/c there weren't enough dogs enrolled at that point.  It's easy to see that 390>325 and to us, that could be important. (YOU need to weigh Bailey's side effects!)

- they didn't test 4 vs 5 vs 6 rounds of carbo.  Keep that in mind!

- And, something that I wish I had known at the start of this is these things all predict worse outcomes for OSA patients: tumors in the proximal humerus and elevated ALPs and increased mitotic indices.  These values are what presented AT diagnosis.

- Older dogs, heavier dogs, and lymphocyte counts also predict better OR worse prognoses.  These values are what presented AT diagnosis.  Ok, so what I wrote isn't helpful, as I wrote: "better OR worse".  That's b/c I'm new to reading these tables and I'm unclear if I'm interpreting them correctly.  I read long ago that younger dogs had worse prognoses than older, but I think the stats in these tables show the opposite.  This would be something talking to your onco about: age, weight, and lymphocyte counts matter, but in what direction?

I think knowing these predictors in terms of survival times would make a difference for some folks fighting OSA.  Some may select to be more aggressive or less, given what predictors are realized for the pet in question.  Others may still decide to throw everything at the cancer.  Info is power!

~ Katy & Jackson