For someone like me, is chemo duration 3 months enough vs 6?

The short version: the evidence retrieved does not directly compare 3 months versus 6 months of chemotherapy for your cancer type and stage.

The records here are mostly about breast cancer, colorectal cancer, and other solid tumors — not your specific cancer. One study on colon cancer (the TOSCA trial) did compare 3 months versus 6 months of oxaliplatin-based chemo in stage II-III patients [2]. It found that 3 months was not proven non-inferior to 6 months: the hazard ratio for relapse or death was 1.14, meaning a 14% higher risk with the shorter course, though this did not reach statistical significance (p=0.506) [2]. The absolute difference was small — about 2-3 percentage points in 5-year disease-free survival — but the trial could not rule out that 3 months is worse.

For breast cancer, the Short-HER trial tested 9 weeks versus 1 year of trastuzumab, not 3 vs 6 months of chemo [1]. The PHARE trial tested 6 months versus 12 months of trastuzumab and found the shorter duration was not non-inferior [1]. Neither answers your question.

The IDEA collaboration (not in these records but widely cited) found that for low-risk stage III colon cancer, 3 months of FOLFOX was non-inferior to 6 months, with less neuropathy. For high-risk patients, 6 months was clearly better. That pattern — shorter duration works for lower-risk disease — is the closest analogy in the literature.

No record here tests 3 versus 6 months for your cancer type. The TOSCA colon cancer data suggests a small absolute loss of benefit with shorter treatment, but the difference may be clinically acceptable for some patients [2].

My call: the evidence does not answer whether 3 months is enough for your specific cancer. The closest data (colon cancer) shows a small but uncertain loss of benefit with shorter treatment. You need a trial or guideline specific to your cancer type and stage.

Confidence: low — the retrieval missed the relevant literature for your cancer.