A decision-exploration tool built by a breast cancer survivor — not a doctor — to organize thinking and prepare questions for appointments. It makes the tradeoffs across recurrence, heart, and bone health visible in one place, so you can see how a choice moves your risks in different directions at once.
What this is not
It is not a diagnosis, a treatment recommendation, or a substitute for your medical team. The numbers are population-level estimates synthesized from many separate trials and registries — they are directional (which way a choice moves your risk, and roughly how much), not precise personal predictions. Validated tools your oncologist can run — PREDICT, Breast Cancer Index, CTS5 — are the accurate individualized sources.
⚠ Never stop, reduce, or change your endocrine therapy (or any treatment) based on this tool. Do that only in conversation with your oncologist. Stopping adjuvant therapy on your own can increase recurrence risk. This tool is meant to assist and prepare for conversations with your doctor — not to be used on its own.
Who it's designed around
It was built around one person's profile: hormone-positive / triple-positive early-stage disease. If your situation is different — triple-negative, metastatic, male breast cancer, a very different age — some outputs may fit poorly. Treat it as a thinking aid, not a personalized readout.
Your privacy
Everything runs in your browser. Nothing you enter is saved, sent, or seen by anyone — close the tab and it's gone. There are no accounts, no tracking, no cost.
A note on the numbers & your wellbeing
This tool shows recurrence and mortality estimates. Those can be hard to sit with, especially soon after a diagnosis. If that feels like a lot, consider going through it with your care team or someone you trust rather than alone. Evidence current as of July 2026; guidelines and trial data change over time.
By continuing you acknowledge this is an educational aid built by a patient, not a medical professional, and that treatment decisions belong with your qualified care team.
Model the tradeoffs across every discipline at once
Cancer decisions are never single-domain. Adjust a variable — most powerfully, whether you stay on your aromatase inhibitor — and watch recurrence, cardiovascular, and bone outcomes move together, each compared against a healthy age-matched woman.
Read this first. These are population-level estimates from randomized trials and registries (ATAC, BIG 1-98, EBCTCG, APHINITY, WCRF/AICR, and others). They show directional tradeoffs, not your personal prognosis. Because this framework combines many variables from a large number of separate evidence sources, the decision outputs should be treated as directional — indicators of which way a choice moves your risks and by roughly how much, not precise predictions. Absolute numbers can't replace validated individualized tools (PREDICT, Breast Cancer Index, CTS5) run on your actual pathology by your oncologist. Use this to ask sharper questions — not to decide alone.
Currently modeling
Triple positive · Stage 1B · NED · Continuing exemestane
= healthy 52-yr-old woman
🧬Recurrence / Cancer
10-yr distant recurrence risk
—%
vs. general population lifetime BC-death risk ≈ 2.5%
10-yr breast-cancer survival
—%
🫀Cardiovascular
10-yr major CV event risk
—%
healthy 50–54-yr-old woman ≈ 5%
HDL trajectory on regimen
—
🦴Bone Health
10-yr major fracture risk
—%
healthy 50–54-yr-old woman ≈ 4%
Projected BMD trajectory
—
⚖ The core tradeoff
🦴 Bone/CV vs full-dose AI
—
🧬 Recurrence vs full-dose AI
—
⚠ Downstream effects of this choice
🎚 Personalized fit — this option weighted by what matters to you
🔬 Model vs. your validated numbers
Across time horizons
How risk accumulates from NED onward under current settings — your risk vs a healthy age-matched woman.
Your projected risk Comparator (healthy peer; or "on-therapy" for regimen-specific rows)
Evidence base for this scenario
🤝 Help build this — it's a work in progress
This tool was made by a survivor, not a clinician, and it's unfinished by design. If you're navigating something similar, I'd love your help making it better — tell me what feels missing, unclear, or wrong, or what tradeoff you wish it showed. The most useful contributions are honest critiques and blind spots, not just feature requests.
One ground rule so it stays trustworthy: every suggestion gets checked against published, peer-reviewed evidence before it's added — this isn't a vote, and no change goes in on the strength of a single anecdote. That discipline is what keeps the numbers meaningful.
Shaped by conversations with others in this position — not endorsed or validated by any medical organization. Always bring any question it raises to your own care team.
Survivorship Decision Helper · Version 1.1 · Last updated 19 July 2026 · Evidence current as of July 2026