From your comments, I think we are thinking along similar lines. Anyway, let me try and answer your questions.
Q - What is the current plan?
A - The liver board at Stanford reviewed the scans and suggested we do another 3 cycles of gem/cis. We are going to do this. However, my thinking is that a linear approach to therapy (do one therapy until it fails, then try another) is not ideal. There are so many therapies out there that could be active against the cancer, that I think it makes sense to try as many as possible. Our plan is to add other therapies to the mix over the next 9 weeks. We have a consult set up with a dr. in the immunotherapy group at stanford. Hopefully that will identify a therapy that can be added with minimal toxicity.
Q - What about Radioembolization?
A - This is still a strong possibility for the future. Stanford specializes in this therapy, and the data does suggest it helps. However, I share your concern that the residual effects of the radiation are poorly understood. One of my concerns here is that I think they want to do the therapy to both lobes at once. My research suggests this is dangerous and not any more effective. They are going to have to explain that better before we do radioembolization.
Q - Heard back from Dr. Kato?
A - We sent the new scan to Dr. Kato to update his files. He has not reviewed our case yet. Given the timing of the scan, we thought it would be better to have him look at the latest scan before the consult. I talked with his assistant Sarah, and I think we should hear from Dr. Kato in the next week or so.
I am concerned that some forum members have had bad outcomes from Dr. Kato. However, I agree with you that given Dr. Kato is accepting cases that are so poor that they are rejected by other surgeons, a much poorer outcome profile is expected.
Is there any more concrete data on patient experiences with Dr Kato?
Anyway, thanks as always for the support and helpful comments.