[Lisa V]

Greg has given some great information and a fantastic analysis. Two thumbs up there!

I just want to address one other aspect and possibly get some feedback from some of the others. We've all heard repeatedly that BMT is the only cure, and this weighs heavily in most of our thinking when making a decision. Lately, however, I keep hearing from people who have relapsed after transplant, and even some of the doctors in the AA&MDSIF's videos refer to relapses post-BMT, and also say that there is no significant difference in the survival statistics between BMT and IST (where that is an option). So for me, that puts the "cure" aspect in a somewhat different light. If relapse is a possibility in both scenarios, and so is durable remission, then it's not so clear cut.

I realize that everybody is likely to be somewhat biased in favor of whatever course of treatment they have chosen, and that is the probably the best thing for maintaining a positive mental state. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind about their treatment decisions, but I'm just wondering how many people would still choose to go with the increased risks, expenses and long recovery time of a BMT if they weren't seeing it as a choice between "cure" and "no cure"?

Obviously a lot would depend on the prognosis, the quality of the available match and what the other options were. Speaking only for myself, I've followed enough cases of debilitating GVHD and other complications/side effects that it has become increasingly difficult for me to look at the process as anything but a last resort.