Felt good on Monday morning, one week after chemo, 2 days of no radiotherapy. Two sessions of radio later, I feel exhausted again and needed two kips during the day today. All fairly normal apparently, but for some strange reason the side-effects of radio are much less well known than those of chemo. This is not because they are less powerful - even a cursory surf on the net shows this not to be the case and they include, just like Chemo, fatigue and nausea. In my particular case I have been told in no uncertain terms that it is the side-effects of the radio that will hit me most. Yet there seems to be some deep-rooted perception out there which, in my ignorance, I used to share, that it is chemo that has the big side-effects. Not so, boyo, not so: it depends on the case.
Perhaps it is the hair loss provoked by chemo for breast cancer that makes us think this, because it is easily visible. I see many women (I want to say sisters, even though I am a man) at my cancer centre with headscarves. That's a tough thing, which does not mark us men out as cancer patients in the same way at all. In fact, as a man, I would happily swap my hair for less nausea, fatigue, mouth sores and the return of the taste of food - and people would think I was just another slaphead (heading there anyway!).
I do not mean to be flippant. Hair loss is traumatic, impacting hugely on identity and self-image and no doubt confidence. But it is only one side effect, and those suffering it must in most cases also suffer the many other less well-known side-effects including those that come from radio. It just seems strange to me, and it is no doubt a sociological phenomenon not one based on the realities of side-effects, that radio side-effects are not widely known.
