New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - newly diagnosed
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

newly diagnosed

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 91011
Author
 Rating: Topic Rating: 1 Votes, Average 5.00  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Lee21 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: Dec 22 2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 752
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lee21 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jul 21 2012 at 10:42am
Thank you all so much for welcoming me back to the Forum.

Mindy -- no need to apologize.  I've seen the article you referred to; it's a very informative review.  There is also this http://www.archivesofpathology.org/doi/full/10.1043/1543-2165-133.10.1515, which is the recommended protocol from the College of American Pathologists for evaluating breast path specimens. I am getting my care at a NCCN facility here in town. In my case, the path was initially read by a 1st year pathology resident, then signed off by the attending pathologist (the fellow I mentioned earlier).  At the re-review, my case was supposedly presented at a breast consensus conference. Even then, the amended report had only one additional comment, which was in direct contradiction to the previous report, regarding residual tumor size. And still no mention of tumor bed, cellularity and how they arrived at the ypT staging. Incidentally, when I tried to ask my surgeon about the ypT staging, to my surprise she said she didn't know what ypT stood for (the NP knew and I think embarrassed).

Another problem with my path is that the receptors changed from ER4%,PR3%,Her2,1+ to now 0,0,0 on the residual tumor.  Is this sampling error, treatment effect, or technical issues? If they are going to give me 5 years' of aromatase inhibitor that will worsen the osteoporosis that I already have, I sure want to have some confidence in the immunohistochemistry results.

My beef is with pathologists and radiologists.  We really need a face-to-face with these docs that interpret some of the most critical decision-making testing, yet, they are loathe to have direct patient contact (my experience); on the other hand, they sure charge enough.

Donna -- I hope that at least the 2nd opinion was worth the effort.  When I look at the clinic notes for my case, I am always surprised at the number of factual errors I find -- sometimes I try to tell the concerned party about the error(s) if they are important enough (which they may or may not correct).
12/9/11 @59,IDC,grade3, TNBC,3cm(MRI),SLNB0,stage IIA, BRCA1 variant
1/30/12 DD AC-T, 6/7/12 Lumpectomy, ypT1b(0.8 cm), 7/9/12 Rads x 30
11/9/12, clinical trial cisplatin/rucaparib, cisplatin-only arm
Back to Top
Lee21 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: Dec 22 2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 752
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lee21 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Aug 08 2012 at 3:00pm
Testing - tech issues with posting.
12/9/11 @59,IDC,grade3, TNBC,3cm(MRI),SLNB0,stage IIA, BRCA1 variant
1/30/12 DD AC-T, 6/7/12 Lumpectomy, ypT1b(0.8 cm), 7/9/12 Rads x 30
11/9/12, clinical trial cisplatin/rucaparib, cisplatin-only arm
Back to Top
Grateful for today View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: Sep 21 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Status: Offline
Points: 1835
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Grateful for today Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Aug 13 2012 at 7:15pm
Lee and Turtle and every one else who is nearing radiation treatment completion,

Think you both are nearing the end of your radiation treatments.

Just wanted to send some caring and skin calming ( think they exist!) thoughts.


With caring and positive thoughts,
Grateful for today.............Judy
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 91011
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.