u/0-f-n-p-e-n-f-p-0

Affiliate is consistently the most cost-effective marketing channel available to SaaS companies. The brands that treat it that way grow their programs. The ones that treat it as a passive revenue experiment or a checkbox item wonder why nothing moves.

Here's what I actually see going wrong, from managing these programs day to day:

1. Affiliates are treated as a distribution channel, not a partner.

The mindset matters more than most founders realize. If the internal framing is "we pay people to send us customers," the program will reflect that: low effort onboarding, minimal communication, no support. Good affiliates have audiences that trust them. They're lending you that trust. Programs that don't respect that burn through partners fast and never figure out why.

2. Vanity metrics replace real ones.

A program with 500 signed-up affiliates and 8 active ones is not a successful program. Sign-up volume is meaningless. The only numbers that matter are activation rate (partners who have made at least one conversion) and revenue per active partner. Most programs optimize for the wrong thing because it feels better to report a big number.

3. The commission isn't competitive for the ask.

This is especially common in B2B SaaS where deals take longer to close and require real content investment from the affiliate. If a partner has to write a 2,000-word review, produce a comparison video, and manage a 60-day reader evaluation cycle to earn $15, they will deprioritize your program. Commission has to reflect the actual effort and sales cycle length, not just feel generous as a percentage.

4. Cookie windows don't account for slow consideration cycles.

In B2B SaaS, someone might click an affiliate's link, evaluate the product, discuss it internally, and come back to register weeks later. If your cookie window is shorter than that consideration period, the affiliate loses attribution for the signup entirely. The cookie only governs that initial click-to-registration window, but in B2B that window is often longer than the standard 30 days most programs default to. This kills trust fast, and affiliates talk to each other.

5. Fraud gets ignored until it's expensive.

Fake sign-ups, cookie stuffing, self-referrals. Most early-stage programs have no monitoring in place and discover the problem after paying out commissions they shouldn't have. By then the damage is done. Basic fraud hygiene from the start is not optional.

6. Partners don't have what they need to actually sell the product.

No positioning clarity, no swipe copy, no demo assets, no comparison angles. Partners are left to figure out how to explain the product to their audience themselves. The ones who bother do it inconsistently. Most don't bother. If you want affiliates to represent your product well, you have to make it easy.

7. There's no activation strategy.

Someone joins the program. They get a welcome email with their link. Then nothing. Most programs have zero structured follow-up for new partners who haven't converted yet. That gap between sign-up and first conversion is where the majority of affiliate relationships die, and almost no one addresses it intentionally.

The programs that work treat affiliate like a channel that requires the same investment as any other: clear positioning, proper tooling, ongoing communication, and someone actually responsible for it.

Happy to go deeper on any of these if you're building or fixing a program right now

Affiliate is consistently the most cost-effective marketing channel available to SaaS companies. The brands that treat it that way grow their programs. The ones that treat it as a passive revenue experiment or a checkbox item wonder why nothing moves.

Here's what I actually see going wrong, from managing these programs day to day:

1. Affiliates are treated as a distribution channel, not a partner.

The mindset matters more than most founders realize. If the internal framing is "we pay people to send us customers," the program will reflect that: low effort onboarding, minimal communication, no support. Good affiliates have audiences that trust them. They're lending you that trust. Programs that don't respect that burn through partners fast and never figure out why.

2. Vanity metrics replace real ones.

A program with 500 signed-up affiliates and 8 active ones is not a successful program. Sign-up volume is meaningless. The only numbers that matter are activation rate (partners who have made at least one conversion) and revenue per active partner. Most programs optimize for the wrong thing because it feels better to report a big number.

3. The commission isn't competitive for the ask.

This is especially common in B2B SaaS where deals take longer to close and require real content investment from the affiliate. If a partner has to write a 2,000-word review, produce a comparison video, and manage a 60-day reader evaluation cycle to earn $15, they will deprioritize your program. Commission has to reflect the actual effort and sales cycle length, not just feel generous as a percentage.

4. Cookie windows don't account for slow consideration cycles.

In B2B SaaS, someone might click an affiliate's link, evaluate the product, discuss it internally, and come back to register weeks later. If your cookie window is shorter than that consideration period, the affiliate loses attribution for the signup entirely. The cookie only governs that initial click-to-registration window, but in B2B that window is often longer than the standard 30 days most programs default to. This kills trust fast, and affiliates talk to each other.

5. Fraud gets ignored until it's expensive.

Fake sign-ups, cookie stuffing, self-referrals. Most early-stage programs have no monitoring in place and discover the problem after paying out commissions they shouldn't have. By then the damage is done. Basic fraud hygiene from the start is not optional.

6. Partners don't have what they need to actually sell the product.

No positioning clarity, no swipe copy, no demo assets, no comparison angles. Partners are left to figure out how to explain the product to their audience themselves. The ones who bother do it inconsistently. Most don't bother. If you want affiliates to represent your product well, you have to make it easy.

7. There's no activation strategy.

Someone joins the program. They get a welcome email with their link. Then nothing. Most programs have zero structured follow-up for new partners who haven't converted yet. That gap between sign-up and first conversion is where the majority of affiliate relationships die, and almost no one addresses it intentionally.

The programs that work treat affiliate like a channel that requires the same investment as any other: clear positioning, proper tooling, ongoing communication, and someone actually responsible for it.

Happy to go deeper on any of these if you're building or fixing a program right now

Affiliate is consistently the most cost-effective marketing channel available to SaaS companies. The brands that treat it that way grow their programs. The ones that treat it as a passive revenue experiment or a checkbox item wonder why nothing moves.

Here's what I actually see going wrong, from managing these programs day to day:

1. Affiliates are treated as a distribution channel, not a partner.

The mindset matters more than most founders realize. If the internal framing is "we pay people to send us customers," the program will reflect that: low effort onboarding, minimal communication, no support. Good affiliates have audiences that trust them. They're lending you that trust. Programs that don't respect that burn through partners fast and never figure out why.

2. Vanity metrics replace real ones.

A program with 500 signed-up affiliates and 8 active ones is not a successful program. Sign-up volume is meaningless. The only numbers that matter are activation rate (partners who have made at least one conversion) and revenue per active partner. Most programs optimize for the wrong thing because it feels better to report a big number.

3. The commission isn't competitive for the ask.

This is especially common in B2B SaaS where deals take longer to close and require real content investment from the affiliate. If a partner has to write a 2,000-word review, produce a comparison video, and manage a 60-day reader evaluation cycle to earn $15, they will deprioritize your program. Commission has to reflect the actual effort and sales cycle length, not just feel generous as a percentage.

4. Cookie windows don't account for slow consideration cycles.

In B2B SaaS, someone might click an affiliate's link, evaluate the product, discuss it internally, and come back to register weeks later. If your cookie window is shorter than that consideration period, the affiliate loses attribution for the signup entirely. The cookie only governs that initial click-to-registration window, but in B2B that window is often longer than the standard 30 days most programs default to. This kills trust fast, and affiliates talk to each other.

5. Fraud gets ignored until it's expensive.

Fake sign-ups, cookie stuffing, self-referrals. Most early-stage programs have no monitoring in place and discover the problem after paying out commissions they shouldn't have. By then the damage is done. Basic fraud hygiene from the start is not optional.

6. Partners don't have what they need to actually sell the product.

No positioning clarity, no swipe copy, no demo assets, no comparison angles. Partners are left to figure out how to explain the product to their audience themselves. The ones who bother do it inconsistently. Most don't bother. If you want affiliates to represent your product well, you have to make it easy.

7. There's no activation strategy.

Someone joins the program. They get a welcome email with their link. Then nothing. Most programs have zero structured follow-up for new partners who haven't converted yet. That gap between sign-up and first conversion is where the majority of affiliate relationships die, and almost no one addresses it intentionally.

The programs that work treat affiliate like a channel that requires the same investment as any other: clear positioning, proper tooling, ongoing communication, and someone actually responsible for it.

Happy to go deeper on any of these if you're building or fixing a program right now

Affiliate is consistently the most cost-effective marketing channel available to SaaS companies. The brands that treat it that way grow their programs. The ones that treat it as a passive revenue experiment or a checkbox item wonder why nothing moves.

Here's what I actually see going wrong, from managing these programs day to day:

1. Affiliates are treated as a distribution channel, not a partner.

The mindset matters more than most founders realize. If the internal framing is "we pay people to send us customers," the program will reflect that: low effort onboarding, minimal communication, no support. Good affiliates have audiences that trust them. They're lending you that trust. Programs that don't respect that burn through partners fast and never figure out why.

2. Vanity metrics replace real ones.

A program with 500 signed-up affiliates and 8 active ones is not a successful program. Sign-up volume is meaningless. The only numbers that matter are activation rate (partners who have made at least one conversion) and revenue per active partner. Most programs optimize for the wrong thing because it feels better to report a big number.

3. The commission isn't competitive for the ask.

This is especially common in B2B SaaS where deals take longer to close and require real content investment from the affiliate. If a partner has to write a 2,000-word review, produce a comparison video, and manage a 60-day reader evaluation cycle to earn $15, they will deprioritize your program. Commission has to reflect the actual effort and sales cycle length, not just feel generous as a percentage.

4. Cookie windows don't account for slow consideration cycles.

In B2B SaaS, someone might click an affiliate's link, evaluate the product, discuss it internally, and come back to register weeks later. If your cookie window is shorter than that consideration period, the affiliate loses attribution for the signup entirely. The cookie only governs that initial click-to-registration window, but in B2B that window is often longer than the standard 30 days most programs default to. This kills trust fast, and affiliates talk to each other.

5. Fraud gets ignored until it's expensive.

Fake sign-ups, cookie stuffing, self-referrals. Most early-stage programs have no monitoring in place and discover the problem after paying out commissions they shouldn't have. By then the damage is done. Basic fraud hygiene from the start is not optional.

6. Partners don't have what they need to actually sell the product.

No positioning clarity, no swipe copy, no demo assets, no comparison angles. Partners are left to figure out how to explain the product to their audience themselves. The ones who bother do it inconsistently. Most don't bother. If you want affiliates to represent your product well, you have to make it easy.

7. There's no activation strategy.

Someone joins the program. They get a welcome email with their link. Then nothing. Most programs have zero structured follow-up for new partners who haven't converted yet. That gap between sign-up and first conversion is where the majority of affiliate relationships die, and almost no one addresses it intentionally.

The programs that work treat affiliate like a channel that requires the same investment as any other: clear positioning, proper tooling, ongoing communication, and someone actually responsible for it.

Happy to go deeper on any of these if you're building or fixing a program right now

Affiliate is consistently the most cost-effective marketing channel available to SaaS companies. The brands that treat it that way grow their programs. The ones that treat it as a passive revenue experiment or a checkbox item wonder why nothing moves.

Here's what I actually see going wrong, from managing these programs day to day:

1. Affiliates are treated as a distribution channel, not a partner.

The mindset matters more than most founders realize. If the internal framing is "we pay people to send us customers," the program will reflect that: low effort onboarding, minimal communication, no support. Good affiliates have audiences that trust them. They're lending you that trust. Programs that don't respect that burn through partners fast and never figure out why.

2. Vanity metrics replace real ones.

A program with 500 signed-up affiliates and 8 active ones is not a successful program. Sign-up volume is meaningless. The only numbers that matter are activation rate (partners who have made at least one conversion) and revenue per active partner. Most programs optimize for the wrong thing because it feels better to report a big number.

3. The commission isn't competitive for the ask.

This is especially common in B2B SaaS where deals take longer to close and require real content investment from the affiliate. If a partner has to write a 2,000-word review, produce a comparison video, and manage a 60-day reader evaluation cycle to earn $15, they will deprioritize your program. Commission has to reflect the actual effort and sales cycle length, not just feel generous as a percentage.

4. Cookie windows don't account for slow consideration cycles.

In B2B SaaS, someone might click an affiliate's link, evaluate the product, discuss it internally, and come back to register weeks later. If your cookie window is shorter than that consideration period, the affiliate loses attribution for the signup entirely. The cookie only governs that initial click-to-registration window, but in B2B that window is often longer than the standard 30 days most programs default to. This kills trust fast, and affiliates talk to each other.

5. Fraud gets ignored until it's expensive.

Fake sign-ups, cookie stuffing, self-referrals. Most early-stage programs have no monitoring in place and discover the problem after paying out commissions they shouldn't have. By then the damage is done. Basic fraud hygiene from the start is not optional.

6. Partners don't have what they need to actually sell the product.

No positioning clarity, no swipe copy, no demo assets, no comparison angles. Partners are left to figure out how to explain the product to their audience themselves. The ones who bother do it inconsistently. Most don't bother. If you want affiliates to represent your product well, you have to make it easy.

7. There's no activation strategy.

Someone joins the program. They get a welcome email with their link. Then nothing. Most programs have zero structured follow-up for new partners who haven't converted yet. That gap between sign-up and first conversion is where the majority of affiliate relationships die, and almost no one addresses it intentionally.

The programs that work treat affiliate like a channel that requires the same investment as any other: clear positioning, proper tooling, ongoing communication, and someone actually responsible for it.

Happy to go deeper on any of these if you're building or fixing a program right now

Affiliate is consistently the most cost-effective marketing channel available to SaaS companies. The brands that treat it that way grow their programs. The ones that treat it as a passive revenue experiment or a checkbox item wonder why nothing moves.

Here's what I actually see going wrong, from managing these programs day to day:

1. Affiliates are treated as a distribution channel, not a partner.

The mindset matters more than most founders realize. If the internal framing is "we pay people to send us customers," the program will reflect that: low effort onboarding, minimal communication, no support. Good affiliates have audiences that trust them. They're lending you that trust. Programs that don't respect that burn through partners fast and never figure out why.

2. Vanity metrics replace real ones.

A program with 500 signed-up affiliates and 8 active ones is not a successful program. Sign-up volume is meaningless. The only numbers that matter are activation rate (partners who have made at least one conversion) and revenue per active partner. Most programs optimize for the wrong thing because it feels better to report a big number.

3. The commission isn't competitive for the ask.

This is especially common in B2B SaaS where deals take longer to close and require real content investment from the affiliate. If a partner has to write a 2,000-word review, produce a comparison video, and manage a 60-day reader evaluation cycle to earn $15, they will deprioritize your program. Commission has to reflect the actual effort and sales cycle length, not just feel generous as a percentage.

4. Cookie windows don't account for slow consideration cycles.

In B2B SaaS, someone might click an affiliate's link, evaluate the product, discuss it internally, and come back to register weeks later. If your cookie window is shorter than that consideration period, the affiliate loses attribution for the signup entirely. The cookie only governs that initial click-to-registration window, but in B2B that window is often longer than the standard 30 days most programs default to. This kills trust fast, and affiliates talk to each other.

5. Fraud gets ignored until it's expensive.

Fake sign-ups, cookie stuffing, self-referrals. Most early-stage programs have no monitoring in place and discover the problem after paying out commissions they shouldn't have. By then the damage is done. Basic fraud hygiene from the start is not optional.

6. Partners don't have what they need to actually sell the product.

No positioning clarity, no swipe copy, no demo assets, no comparison angles. Partners are left to figure out how to explain the product to their audience themselves. The ones who bother do it inconsistently. Most don't bother. If you want affiliates to represent your product well, you have to make it easy.

7. There's no activation strategy.

Someone joins the program. They get a welcome email with their link. Then nothing. Most programs have zero structured follow-up for new partners who haven't converted yet. That gap between sign-up and first conversion is where the majority of affiliate relationships die, and almost no one addresses it intentionally.

The programs that work treat affiliate like a channel that requires the same investment as any other: clear positioning, proper tooling, ongoing communication, and someone actually responsible for it.

Happy to go deeper on any of these if you're building or fixing a program right now

Affiliate is consistently the most cost-effective marketing channel available to SaaS companies. The brands that treat it that way grow their programs. The ones that treat it as a passive revenue experiment or a checkbox item wonder why nothing moves.

Here's what I actually see going wrong, from managing these programs day to day:

1. Affiliates are treated as a distribution channel, not a partner.

The mindset matters more than most founders realize. If the internal framing is "we pay people to send us customers," the program will reflect that: low effort onboarding, minimal communication, no support. Good affiliates have audiences that trust them. They're lending you that trust. Programs that don't respect that burn through partners fast and never figure out why.

2. Vanity metrics replace real ones.

A program with 500 signed-up affiliates and 8 active ones is not a successful program. Sign-up volume is meaningless. The only numbers that matter are activation rate (partners who have made at least one conversion) and revenue per active partner. Most programs optimize for the wrong thing because it feels better to report a big number.

3. The commission isn't competitive for the ask.

This is especially common in B2B SaaS where deals take longer to close and require real content investment from the affiliate. If a partner has to write a 2,000-word review, produce a comparison video, and manage a 60-day reader evaluation cycle to earn $15, they will deprioritize your program. Commission has to reflect the actual effort and sales cycle length, not just feel generous as a percentage.

4. Cookie windows don't account for slow consideration cycles.

In B2B SaaS, someone might click an affiliate's link, evaluate the product, discuss it internally, and come back to register weeks later. If your cookie window is shorter than that consideration period, the affiliate loses attribution for the signup entirely. The cookie only governs that initial click-to-registration window, but in B2B that window is often longer than the standard 30 days most programs default to. This kills trust fast, and affiliates talk to each other.

5. Fraud gets ignored until it's expensive.

Fake sign-ups, cookie stuffing, self-referrals. Most early-stage programs have no monitoring in place and discover the problem after paying out commissions they shouldn't have. By then the damage is done. Basic fraud hygiene from the start is not optional.

6. Partners don't have what they need to actually sell the product.

No positioning clarity, no swipe copy, no demo assets, no comparison angles. Partners are left to figure out how to explain the product to their audience themselves. The ones who bother do it inconsistently. Most don't bother. If you want affiliates to represent your product well, you have to make it easy.

7. There's no activation strategy.

Someone joins the program. They get a welcome email with their link. Then nothing. Most programs have zero structured follow-up for new partners who haven't converted yet. That gap between sign-up and first conversion is where the majority of affiliate relationships die, and almost no one addresses it intentionally.

The programs that work treat affiliate like a channel that requires the same investment as any other: clear positioning, proper tooling, ongoing communication, and someone actually responsible for it.

Happy to go deeper on any of these if you're building or fixing a program right now

Affiliate is consistently the most cost-effective marketing channel available to SaaS companies. The brands that treat it that way grow their programs. The ones that treat it as a passive revenue experiment or a checkbox item wonder why nothing moves.

Here's what I actually see going wrong, from managing these programs day to day:

1. Affiliates are treated as a distribution channel, not a partner.

The mindset matters more than most founders realize. If the internal framing is "we pay people to send us customers," the program will reflect that: low effort onboarding, minimal communication, no support. Good affiliates have audiences that trust them. They're lending you that trust. Programs that don't respect that burn through partners fast and never figure out why.

2. Vanity metrics replace real ones.

A program with 500 signed-up affiliates and 8 active ones is not a successful program. Sign-up volume is meaningless. The only numbers that matter are activation rate (partners who have made at least one conversion) and revenue per active partner. Most programs optimize for the wrong thing because it feels better to report a big number.

3. The commission isn't competitive for the ask.

This is especially common in B2B SaaS where deals take longer to close and require real content investment from the affiliate. If a partner has to write a 2,000-word review, produce a comparison video, and manage a 60-day reader evaluation cycle to earn $15, they will deprioritize your program. Commission has to reflect the actual effort and sales cycle length, not just feel generous as a percentage.

4. Cookie windows don't account for slow consideration cycles.

In B2B SaaS, someone might click an affiliate's link, evaluate the product, discuss it internally, and come back to register weeks later. If your cookie window is shorter than that consideration period, the affiliate loses attribution for the signup entirely. The cookie only governs that initial click-to-registration window, but in B2B that window is often longer than the standard 30 days most programs default to. This kills trust fast, and affiliates talk to each other.

5. Fraud gets ignored until it's expensive.

Fake sign-ups, cookie stuffing, self-referrals. Most early-stage programs have no monitoring in place and discover the problem after paying out commissions they shouldn't have. By then the damage is done. Basic fraud hygiene from the start is not optional.

6. Partners don't have what they need to actually sell the product.

No positioning clarity, no swipe copy, no demo assets, no comparison angles. Partners are left to figure out how to explain the product to their audience themselves. The ones who bother do it inconsistently. Most don't bother. If you want affiliates to represent your product well, you have to make it easy.

7. There's no activation strategy.

Someone joins the program. They get a welcome email with their link. Then nothing. Most programs have zero structured follow-up for new partners who haven't converted yet. That gap between sign-up and first conversion is where the majority of affiliate relationships die, and almost no one addresses it intentionally.

The programs that work treat affiliate like a channel that requires the same investment as any other: clear positioning, proper tooling, ongoing communication, and someone actually responsible for it.

Happy to go deeper on any of these if you're building or fixing a program right now

TLDR: My partner's mother (72F) was diagnosed with pancreatic adenocarcinoma in March 2026 and started chemo 28 days ago. Tonight she was admitted to the hospital with jaundice, high bilirubin, dehydration, and anemia. Initial indication from her doctor is that it is chemotherapy toxicity rather than tumor progression, and the plan is to stabilize her and resume treatment. Looking for experiences, insight, and honest perspective from people who have been through something similar. I've never dealt with cancer in my family before.

My partner's mother is 72 years old. She has a prior history of colorectal cancer 10+ years ago, for which she was successfully treated and has been closely monitored with regular oncology checkups since. Her tests all came back completely clean in October 2025.

In November 2025 she came to visit us in Europe (she lives in South America) and developed what we thought was bronchitis. She returned home in January 2026 still unwell, and further investigation revealed she had actually had bilateral pneumonia. During that workup, doctors found a small pancreatic lesion (~1.8cm) and noted her CA 19-9 had started rising rapidly (approximately 500, then 1700+, and continuing to increase).

A PET-CT was done and showed:

• No hypermetabolic activity in the pancreas (atypical for pancreatic adenocarcinoma)
• No obvious liver lesions
• Multiple mildly to moderately hypermetabolic lymph nodes both above and below the diaphragm (SUV values mostly 2-4)
• Residual inflammatory lung changes from the pneumonia
• Lymph nodes described as "suspicious for secondary involvement related to underlying disease"

She then underwent an endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy. Results came back March 31, 2026: WHO pancreatic cytopathology Category VI (unambiguously malignant), histologically compatible with pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

She started chemotherapy on April 21, 2026, so 28 days ago. Weekly cycles with a portable pump. She has a cold sensitivity side effect where touching cold things feels like an electric shock. The first round was very rough with significant nausea. Subsequent rounds were slightly more tolerable.

Throughout this period she has lost 7-8kg and now weighs approximately 38kg. Her baseline was around 45-50kg. Appetite has been poor throughout.

Over the past few days my SIL who lives with her noticed she was looking yellow. Today she went to a routine nutritionist appointment, had blood work done, and her oncologist admitted her to the hospital immediately. Bilirubin was reportedly very high and her full blood panel came back with concerning values. No major night sweats, no unexplained persistent fevers, no generalized itching noted.

We have now heard back from the doctor. It appears the jaundice and high bilirubin are caused by chemotherapy toxicity rather than tumor progression or liver involvement. She is also dehydrated and anemic. The plan is to keep her in the hospital to stabilize and recover her, then resume chemotherapy next week or the week after depending on how she responds. Chemo may be paused temporarily but the overall treatment plan remains intact for now. This is a relief, though we are still waiting on full imaging and bloodwork confirmation.

The original plan was to reassess after 3 months of chemotherapy (around July 2026) to determine whether she had responded well enough to proceed to surgery. That milestone is still the target.

I want to add some personal context: I have never dealt with cancer in my family before and this is all very new and frightening. She is my partner's mother and we live far away from her in Europe. I don't know what to expect as this progresses, I don't know how to support my partner properly, and I don't know what questions we should be asking the doctors.

My partner is planning to travel back to be with her in July, timed around that reassessment appointment. We also have a vacation planned this coming Friday that was booked before any of this happened. Tonight has been a lot.

Any perspective from people who have been through something similar, whether as a patient's child or as a partner watching from the sidelines, would be really appreciated.

Questions:

• Has anyone experienced chemotherapy toxicity causing jaundice and high bilirubin in a pancreatic cancer patient? How was it managed and did treatment continue successfully afterward?
• The PET-CT showed no hypermetabolic primary tumor, which I understand is atypical for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Has anyone had a similar diagnostic picture?
• Her CA 19-9 was clean in October 2025 and she was diagnosed in March 2026. Does this timeline match others' experiences? It feels shockingly fast.
• She is 72, weighs 38kg, and is clearly struggling with treatment tolerance. Has anyone navigated chemotherapy with a very low body weight? Did doctors adjust dosing?
• For those who had a parent go through this: how did you support your partner from a distance, and how did you know when it was time to drop everything and go?
• I understand pancreatic cancer is one of the most difficult to overcome. Should I be preparing myself mentally that she won't reach 2027?
• My partner had always planned to go in July to be there for the reassessment and potential surgery decision. Given how quickly things can change with this disease, should I be encouraging him to go sooner rather than waiting for July, or is it reasonable to trust his judgment on the timing? I don't want to overstep but I also don't want him to regret not going earlier. How did others navigate this?

Any tips, stories, insights, etc are highly appreciated