Sep 03, 2012 - 11:52 am
Apologies for rev-visiting a subject which I'm sure must have been discussed many times in the past. However I am a little worried about the discrepancy between the advice given by my physician and the UCLA grading survival statistics shown in the below link :
The UCLA PowerPoint in this presentation gives five year survival statistics for Grade 2 as 68 % and Grade 3 as 42 % , neither of which seem compatible with all the other statistics I have seen. 10 year Grade 3 survival is stated as 24%.
I am advised that my Grade 3, clear cell , 3.4 cm tumor is staged as 1a.. It was fully excised with negative margins. On the Mayo Clinic system this is ' low risk' and my follow up has been scheduled accordingly with the first scan in six months. If the UCLA statistics are correct a Grade 3 , regardless of size/stage looks very high risk and even Grade 2 looks sort of intermediate-high risk.
I had been quite sanguine about what appeared to be a relatively optimistic scenario with stage 1 a . I'm now rather perturbed to say the least.
Any advice very welcome from those with more knowledge of this subject. Am I right to be concerned or is it more of a case of lies, damned lies and grading statistics ?