Back to Unclassified status
Comments
-
2nd opinionNewDay said:How to get further opinion
Thanks Tex,
How do you get another opinion on the pathology?When I went from Urologist to Oncologist, all my information went wih me, including the slides of my tumor. It re-examined to clarify one or two area of the report. No additional treatment is a great thing, the common response we always hear is "we got it all". With clear margins,that is the catch phrase used, and yes, the feeling of "shouldn't I do more" is the exact thought I had when I heard those words.
Side note, I went to my oncologist looking for a potential trial thinking I was cancer free. My oncogist saw a tumor in the report that my urologist completely overlooked. I believe the trial I was looking into was the Eveest Trial. Even if you do not do a trial, an oncologist that specializes is RCC is a good idea in my opinion. It is a good 2nd set of eyes on the reports, and if you do ever need more treatment, you will already have a doctor you are comfortable with.
I also agree about the lymph nodes. If they were not taken, they were not observed to have evidence of cancer, a good thing.
Here is what google had on the Everst trial, looks like they are still recruiting.
clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01120249Sep 11, 2012 - PURPOSE: This phase III trial is studying everolimus to see how ... Official Title: EVEREST: EVErolimus for Renal CancerEnsuing Surgical Therapy, A Phase III Study ...
0 -
Posting datesDarron said:2nd opinion
When I went from Urologist to Oncologist, all my information went wih me, including the slides of my tumor. It re-examined to clarify one or two area of the report. No additional treatment is a great thing, the common response we always hear is "we got it all". With clear margins,that is the catch phrase used, and yes, the feeling of "shouldn't I do more" is the exact thought I had when I heard those words.
Side note, I went to my oncologist looking for a potential trial thinking I was cancer free. My oncogist saw a tumor in the report that my urologist completely overlooked. I believe the trial I was looking into was the Eveest Trial. Even if you do not do a trial, an oncologist that specializes is RCC is a good idea in my opinion. It is a good 2nd set of eyes on the reports, and if you do ever need more treatment, you will already have a doctor you are comfortable with.
I also agree about the lymph nodes. If they were not taken, they were not observed to have evidence of cancer, a good thing.
Here is what google had on the Everst trial, looks like they are still recruiting.
clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01120249Sep 11, 2012 - PURPOSE: This phase III trial is studying everolimus to see how ... Official Title: EVEREST: EVErolimus for Renal CancerEnsuing Surgical Therapy, A Phase III Study ...
Darron, you're already a good contributor but still a newcomer, so a quick heads-up. There's just about nothing you can teach Kathy about any of this. We helped to persuade her, what seems like aeons ago, to seek a further expert opinion (and even more, if necessary) in her very rare pathology and circumstances. (She is an unusually intriguing case of great interest at an academic level as well a a challenging patient when it comes to treatment.)
You've been caught out, like many others of us here, by not noticing the date of a post. The post you've responded to was exactly a year ago! CSN has actually, inadvertently, exacerbated the problem by adopting the presentational feature of repeating, at the head of each new page of a thread, the text of the opening posting - making it extra easy to slip up. (Michael's familiar WOOOOO HOOOOO! message was in response to Kathy's on the previous page.)
0 -
LOL! Thanks TW!Texas_wedge said:Posting dates
Darron, you're already a good contributor but still a newcomer, so a quick heads-up. There's just about nothing you can teach Kathy about any of this. We helped to persuade her, what seems like aeons ago, to seek a further expert opinion (and even more, if necessary) in her very rare pathology and circumstances. (She is an unusually intriguing case of great interest at an academic level as well a a challenging patient when it comes to treatment.)
You've been caught out, like many others of us here, by not noticing the date of a post. The post you've responded to was exactly a year ago! CSN has actually, inadvertently, exacerbated the problem by adopting the presentational feature of repeating, at the head of each new page of a thread, the text of the opening posting - making it extra easy to slip up. (Michael's familiar WOOOOO HOOOOO! message was in response to Kathy's on the previous page.)
As I saidLOL! Thanks TW!
As I said many times, I'm nothing if I'm not enthusiastic!
0
Discussion Boards
- All Discussion Boards
- 6 CSN Information
- 6 Welcome to CSN
- 121.8K Cancer specific
- 2.8K Anal Cancer
- 446 Bladder Cancer
- 309 Bone Cancers
- 1.6K Brain Cancer
- 28.5K Breast Cancer
- 397 Childhood Cancers
- 27.9K Colorectal Cancer
- 4.6K Esophageal Cancer
- 1.2K Gynecological Cancers (other than ovarian and uterine)
- 13K Head and Neck Cancer
- 6.4K Kidney Cancer
- 671 Leukemia
- 792 Liver Cancer
- 4.1K Lung Cancer
- 5.1K Lymphoma (Hodgkin and Non-Hodgkin)
- 237 Multiple Myeloma
- 7.1K Ovarian Cancer
- 61 Pancreatic Cancer
- 487 Peritoneal Cancer
- 5.5K Prostate Cancer
- 1.2K Rare and Other Cancers
- 539 Sarcoma
- 730 Skin Cancer
- 653 Stomach Cancer
- 191 Testicular Cancer
- 1.5K Thyroid Cancer
- 5.8K Uterine/Endometrial Cancer
- 6.3K Lifestyle Discussion Boards