Hi my husband died nearly 2 years ago aged 54 from neuroendocrine stage 4 small cell lung cancer. He died of multi organ failure on day 10 of his second chemo cycle. When I spoke to his Macmillan nurse she told me that the chemo had probably killed him and that my hubbie was warned about that. The cancer was symptom less until diagnosis following a sore shoulder. It had spread to, among other sites including his liver, the bones in his neck and he was petrified that it would spread to his brain so wanted chemo. I had read and indeed knew of two people with the same cancer. The girl who refused chemo lived for over a year but my uncle only 6 weeks with chemo, my hubbie surviving 7 weeks from diagnosis, 3 weeks after chemo. He had a great quality of life until the 2nd cycle of chemo where he lost 4 stone,3 inches in height, mouth ulcers, swollen hands and feet with his skin bleeding and peeling off. He was in a terrible state. What I'd like to achieve is to ask others opinions on this cancer and whether , in hindsight, no chemo would've led to a longer life with better quality. Whilst getting dressed to go out, I saw the dreaded purple/dusky skin that I knew could mean signs of end of life. Hubbie said " I feel a bit funny", slipped into a coma and died 4 hours later. His family and friends never got to say goodbye as the end was so sudden. I appreciate tho' that maybe this was a blessing in disguise as no one truly wants to say goodbye. Also I think patients should be informed about quality of life versus quantity ( we never were) and merely told that this kind of cancer responds well to aggressive chemo....I've since heard my aunt be told that this isn't true and life expectancy following diagnosis may be weeks. I urge anyone newly diagnosed to ask those difficult questions as options need to be weighed up and preparations need to be made. Thanks for reading and any input welcomed
Teenytrish
