Tumors over 2 cm

tcteach
tcteach Member Posts: 27
edited March 2014 in Breast Cancer #1
I would like to hear your oncologist's views on treating tumors over 2 cm, especially in younger women (40s). I have been told that chemo is a must. Is that how your doctors feel?

Thanks, in advance, for the info
Tricia

Comments

  • chenheart
    chenheart Member Posts: 5,159
    3cm
    My tumor was 3cm with 3 of 15 positive lymphnode, so chemo was ordered. Rads too...that was almost 7 years ago. I was 110 at the time, so I don't know about the younger set! But I look damn good for being 117, so the chemo was worth it!

    Hugs,
    Claudia
  • confused123
    confused123 Member Posts: 251
    I am also "younger", age 33.
    I am also "younger", age 33. I had chemo but I am not sure if it is because of tumor size or because of type of cancer. I was told that the chemo was also to kill any loose cancer cells floating around in the body.

    Kim
  • creampuff91344
    creampuff91344 Member Posts: 988

    I am also "younger", age 33.
    I am also "younger", age 33. I had chemo but I am not sure if it is because of tumor size or because of type of cancer. I was told that the chemo was also to kill any loose cancer cells floating around in the body.

    Kim

    Well, to start with....I am
    Well, to start with....I am not younger, but will answer your questions about the 2cm's being the cutoff. My oncologist told me that 2 cm's in size was the determining factor on whether chemo was part of the treatment or not. My tumor was 2.1 cm's....he made no exceptions. Also, the tumor had gone undetected through three previous mammograms done in a different city over a four year period. I was just lucky that I moved in 2008, and the first thing I did was find a gynocologist to do my annual checkup. My mammogram detected something that wasn't quite right, and the radiologist wrote to my previous mammogram facility and requested past film. They sent the mammo from 2004, and sure enough, it was there then. I am just lucky to have found it when I did....but it does make me mad that the chemo could have been avoided if it had been picked up back in 2004. Sometimes it just makes you angry that physicians who profess to be "experts" make mistakes, and you are the one who pays the price. (It was the same radiologist who read my memmograms in 2004, 2005 and 2006...he missed it all three times.) Hope this answers your question, but I am sure there are others who have experienced similar situations. Hugs.

    Judy
  • Aortus
    Aortus Member Posts: 967
    chenheart said:

    3cm
    My tumor was 3cm with 3 of 15 positive lymphnode, so chemo was ordered. Rads too...that was almost 7 years ago. I was 110 at the time, so I don't know about the younger set! But I look damn good for being 117, so the chemo was worth it!

    Hugs,
    Claudia

    An odd question, I know...
    But I have to ask you anyway. I can't imagine that you were born 50 feet tall (at least I hope for your mom's sake you weren't). So when did you do your major growing? In your teens, maybe? Or maybe after you turned 95? Can you help me out here, Claudia?

    Joe
  • Jeanne D
    Jeanne D Member Posts: 1,867

    Well, to start with....I am
    Well, to start with....I am not younger, but will answer your questions about the 2cm's being the cutoff. My oncologist told me that 2 cm's in size was the determining factor on whether chemo was part of the treatment or not. My tumor was 2.1 cm's....he made no exceptions. Also, the tumor had gone undetected through three previous mammograms done in a different city over a four year period. I was just lucky that I moved in 2008, and the first thing I did was find a gynocologist to do my annual checkup. My mammogram detected something that wasn't quite right, and the radiologist wrote to my previous mammogram facility and requested past film. They sent the mammo from 2004, and sure enough, it was there then. I am just lucky to have found it when I did....but it does make me mad that the chemo could have been avoided if it had been picked up back in 2004. Sometimes it just makes you angry that physicians who profess to be "experts" make mistakes, and you are the one who pays the price. (It was the same radiologist who read my memmograms in 2004, 2005 and 2006...he missed it all three times.) Hope this answers your question, but I am sure there are others who have experienced similar situations. Hugs.

    Judy

    Chemo
    My oncologist said that any tumor 2cm or over is always treated with

    chemo, or, should be.
  • Alexis F
    Alexis F Member Posts: 3,598

    I am also "younger", age 33.
    I am also "younger", age 33. I had chemo but I am not sure if it is because of tumor size or because of type of cancer. I was told that the chemo was also to kill any loose cancer cells floating around in the body.

    Kim

    I don't think age has
    I don't think age has anything to do with it. My oncologist, and, from what I have read says that tumors over 2cm are treated with chemo. Good luck!
  • Marcia527
    Marcia527 Member Posts: 2,729
    I was over 50 when
    I was over 50 when diagnosed. But my tumor was 6cm, 3cm, and another smaller one. I had to have chemo first to shrink the tumor or I'd need skin grafts. Then after surgery needed more chemo and rads. I had two nodes with cancer out of 15 even after the first four cycles of chemo. I've wondered if I misunderstood and instead of three tumors, maybe this was one whopper tumor's dimensions. I've ordered my records to be sent to me but have not received them yet. Boy are they slow.
  • Noel
    Noel Member Posts: 3,095 Member
    chenheart said:

    3cm
    My tumor was 3cm with 3 of 15 positive lymphnode, so chemo was ordered. Rads too...that was almost 7 years ago. I was 110 at the time, so I don't know about the younger set! But I look damn good for being 117, so the chemo was worth it!

    Hugs,
    Claudia

    My tumor was small, but, I
    My tumor was small, but, I was told that anything over 2cm requires chemo. Age has nothing to do with it at all. Good luck!
  • Kristin N
    Kristin N Member Posts: 1,968 Member
    Marcia527 said:

    I was over 50 when
    I was over 50 when diagnosed. But my tumor was 6cm, 3cm, and another smaller one. I had to have chemo first to shrink the tumor or I'd need skin grafts. Then after surgery needed more chemo and rads. I had two nodes with cancer out of 15 even after the first four cycles of chemo. I've wondered if I misunderstood and instead of three tumors, maybe this was one whopper tumor's dimensions. I've ordered my records to be sent to me but have not received them yet. Boy are they slow.

    I think it is pretty
    I think it is pretty standard that tumors 2cm or over require chemo. And, like the others said, I don't know that age has anything to do with it. Good luck to you!
  • Noel
    Noel Member Posts: 3,095 Member
    Marcia527 said:

    I was over 50 when
    I was over 50 when diagnosed. But my tumor was 6cm, 3cm, and another smaller one. I had to have chemo first to shrink the tumor or I'd need skin grafts. Then after surgery needed more chemo and rads. I had two nodes with cancer out of 15 even after the first four cycles of chemo. I've wondered if I misunderstood and instead of three tumors, maybe this was one whopper tumor's dimensions. I've ordered my records to be sent to me but have not received them yet. Boy are they slow.

    Did you get your records yet
    Did you get your records yet Marcia? It took a couple of weeks for me to get everything on me.
  • Marcia527
    Marcia527 Member Posts: 2,729
    Noel said:

    Did you get your records yet
    Did you get your records yet Marcia? It took a couple of weeks for me to get everything on me.

    I finally did get my records
    I finally did get my records but they don't cover the treatment time period. The place I had treatment didn't send them to my next oncologist.
  • mimivac
    mimivac Member Posts: 2,143
    tumor size
    Tricia, I think tumors over 2 cm are considered stage II and above and therefore chemo is prescribed. Anything under 2 is potentially stage I and there is more room to skip certain treatments. My tumor (at age 34) was 2.6 cm. and triple negative so there was no question that chemo and rads would be in order. My doctors were actually nervous that I would decide against chemo. Believe me, that was not even a consideration.

    Age does matter. Younger women get more aggressive cancer and require more aggressive treatments. Younger women also have a longer period for the cancer to eventually come back, so more aggressive treatment is in order.
  • Marcia527
    Marcia527 Member Posts: 2,729
    mimivac said:

    tumor size
    Tricia, I think tumors over 2 cm are considered stage II and above and therefore chemo is prescribed. Anything under 2 is potentially stage I and there is more room to skip certain treatments. My tumor (at age 34) was 2.6 cm. and triple negative so there was no question that chemo and rads would be in order. My doctors were actually nervous that I would decide against chemo. Believe me, that was not even a consideration.

    Age does matter. Younger women get more aggressive cancer and require more aggressive treatments. Younger women also have a longer period for the cancer to eventually come back, so more aggressive treatment is in order.

    I wonder if it is not age
    I wonder if it is not age but if you are in menopause that determines aggressive cancer (I read this someplace). I was 52 when diagnosed but not in menopause yet and my cancer was grade 3 which my surgeon said was aggressive. I had chemo induced menopause. In my mind it is more tragic to get cancer the younger you are though.
  • dyaneb123
    dyaneb123 Member Posts: 950
    My tumor was 2.5 and the
    My tumor was 2.5 and the surgeon would have stopped at a lumpectomy and radiation if the cancer cells had not spread into surronding tissue margins , but as they had spread, and I had one positive node, I ended up with a mastectomy and chemo. I think if it is confined to the tumor , you can get by without the chemo.
    Dee
  • survivorbc09
    survivorbc09 Member Posts: 4,374 Member
    dyaneb123 said:

    My tumor was 2.5 and the
    My tumor was 2.5 and the surgeon would have stopped at a lumpectomy and radiation if the cancer cells had not spread into surronding tissue margins , but as they had spread, and I had one positive node, I ended up with a mastectomy and chemo. I think if it is confined to the tumor , you can get by without the chemo.
    Dee

    I was told by my oncologist
    I was told by my oncologist also that tumors over 2 cm are always treated with chemo, as, that is usually seen as an aggresive cancer, if it is that size.
  • Lakegirl
    Lakegirl Member Posts: 15
    mimivac said:

    tumor size
    Tricia, I think tumors over 2 cm are considered stage II and above and therefore chemo is prescribed. Anything under 2 is potentially stage I and there is more room to skip certain treatments. My tumor (at age 34) was 2.6 cm. and triple negative so there was no question that chemo and rads would be in order. My doctors were actually nervous that I would decide against chemo. Believe me, that was not even a consideration.

    Age does matter. Younger women get more aggressive cancer and require more aggressive treatments. Younger women also have a longer period for the cancer to eventually come back, so more aggressive treatment is in order.

    Triple Negative
    I have been following you somewhat. Not a stalker but as a newly diagnosed Triple Negative. I had a lumpectomy, Stage II, Grade III, on 7-10-09. Chemo to begin 8-13-09 followed by Rad. Do you have any wisdom you can pass on? Were you able to work during chemo? I don't know what to expect.

    Thanks, Robin
  • susie09
    susie09 Member Posts: 2,930

    I was told by my oncologist
    I was told by my oncologist also that tumors over 2 cm are always treated with chemo, as, that is usually seen as an aggresive cancer, if it is that size.

    My oncologist said any tumor
    My oncologist said any tumor over 2cm almost always would require chemo. And, since that was a large tumor, that a lumpectomy with clean margins would take a lot of the breast, so, some women have a mastectomy with reconstruction, since most of their breast would be gone.

    Seems it differs with some.
  • cathlinberreth01
    cathlinberreth01 Member Posts: 38
    susie09 said:

    My oncologist said any tumor
    My oncologist said any tumor over 2cm almost always would require chemo. And, since that was a large tumor, that a lumpectomy with clean margins would take a lot of the breast, so, some women have a mastectomy with reconstruction, since most of their breast would be gone.

    Seems it differs with some.

    ditto
    Ditto.
  • Kylez
    Kylez Member Posts: 3,761 Member

    ditto
    Ditto.

    Age has nothing to do with
    Age has nothing to do with it that I know. But, I was told that tumors over 2cm are almost always treated with chemo. And, a friend of mine had a 1.9 cm and since she was so close, her oncologist and she decided to have chemo too.

    She wanted to do everything to fight bc. And, she even had the oncotype test, but, didn't follow what it said. It said she shouldn't.

    So, I think it just varies.