right breast lumpectomy/clear nodes-margins.what do i do?

OH, MY!
I agree--you must at least do radiation. Do you drive or ride in a car? What are your chances of being involved in a wreck? Probably pretty high, yet we all do it. I think I would rather take my chances of having some side effects, even another cancer than to just not do anything.

breast cancer
i too had a lumpectomy and my margines and lymph were clear..,mine was stage 2 but aggressive. i also had the 5 day 2x a day radation called a mammosite. they put a balloon in the spot where the tumor was. the dr said i didn't need the chemo but put me on a chemo pill once a day...sense mine was harmone aggressive i have to have a harmone blocker...it called arimidex. its a 1 milgram tablet i take once a day. mine too was on the right side it was 4 cm. i still go every month right now for checks but so far i am good. the side effects were mimmanil a little nausa and i fixed that by eating when i took the pill. i don't underdtand if it was so small and all why the reg chemo.... good luck kkeep us informed. but if it was bad enough to have it removed then you would defenitly need chemo..this is nothing to play around with. it could cost you your life its something you really need to think about...

loveline said:

thanks
thank you this is helping. my tumor was 3 cm my stage was 2, i have learnd most of what i know from reading and this site. i was not offered any other rads options. i'll ask about this .it sounds less damageing than the 33 treatments. i will have to take a hormone blocker after rads. tamoxifen or femara.i am 43 and have beautiful daughters and grandchildren, i plan to live a long life and yes i will do what is nessasary to do it, i'm just unsure of what doctors have to offer.i'm sure they are doing there best it just seems wrong to me to make people sicker to make them better. fight one thing and end up with another. does anyone else feel that way.maybe i've just read to much .lol


ps they said i would only go every 6 months after treatment,mammograms first,then some other test six months later. is this right.

Reading up on treatments is good. I also deal with the uncertainty of having cancer by reading and reading a lot. However, I have learned a few things over the years. First of all, the oncology field is changing so fast these days that if it is in a book, it is already out-dated even if that book is hot off the press. I trust books to explain cancer history and most of the main ideas in recent (read last 2 years) are probably okay, but it takes 2 years to print out a book and by that time the cancer treatment stuff has been updated. Also watch out of internet sites written by either non-medical people that explain their personal history with cancer treatments or by salespeople that are looking to make a buck selling the latest miracle cure. The doctors are still looking for a cure, but at least they are researching the side effects in some kind of an organized manner on populations of people rather than reporting what happened to just one person they knew. They are also getting results with their treatment programs. They have made all forms of cancer treatment more effective and less harmful to other body parts over the years. However, to get the best treatment, you have know what you are looking for and get to the doctors that offer it.

You do not say what kind of breast cancer you have. Cancer is an umbrella term that covers many different diseases each with its own treatment plan and prognosis. Throat cancer tends to be much more aggressive than colon cancer. Older folks with cancer often have less aggressive cancer than younger folks that develop the same kinds of cancer. Even within breast cancer some types are tons more aggressive than others. Some respond better to chemo, some worse. I have ER+/PR+ node negative breast cancer. They skipped chemo in my case (told me it wasn't worth the side effects for my kind of cancer) and put me on tamoxifen and then an aromatase inhibitor because my tumors were small-found in 2 places that necessitated a mastectomy-and hormone-controlled. If I had a larger tumor like yours but couldn't tolerate chemo, I would still do the radiation if I had a lumpectomy and then use the same hormone control. If I had a ER-/PR- (esp. if also an HER-) tumor, I would run for the chemo. Chemo is the only thing that is proven to work for those nasties and they tend to be much more aggressive. I have a friend that had the triple negative breast cancer who did the whole chemo and radiation bit. That took just about a year to finish and she taught the entire time missing only 2 days of work the whole year. She is still doing well and her cancer was first diagnosed in 2001. Another friend with inflamatory breast cancer figured she survived an extra two years (a total of 4 years from first diagnosis) thanks to the positive effects of chemo on her extremely rotten sort of disease. Her's had a doubling rate of every 27 days and that's a really bad sign by itself and her nodes were positive from the get go. But thanks to a variety of drugs the oncologists used, she stayed active right up to the last 2 1/2 weeks and lived much longer than expected, even by the doctors themselves.

I know this a decision you have to make by yourself, but if terms in the paragraph above are even a little bit confusing, you might want to talk to a different breast cancer oncologist and get his or her take on what your prognosis is with and without treatment. Second opinions can be very valuable. If the difference is only a year, maybe 6-8 months on chemo isn't worth it. If the difference is 5 years, maybe it is. Only you can decide and you need more information to go on.

C. Abbott

cabbott said:

Reading up on treatments is good. I also deal with the uncertainty of having cancer by reading and reading a lot. However, I have learned a few things over the years. First of all, the oncology field is changing so fast these days that if it is in a book, it is already out-dated even if that book is hot off the press. I trust books to explain cancer history and most of the main ideas in recent (read last 2 years) are probably okay, but it takes 2 years to print out a book and by that time the cancer treatment stuff has been updated. Also watch out of internet sites written by either non-medical people that explain their personal history with cancer treatments or by salespeople that are looking to make a buck selling the latest miracle cure. The doctors are still looking for a cure, but at least they are researching the side effects in some kind of an organized manner on populations of people rather than reporting what happened to just one person they knew. They are also getting results with their treatment programs. They have made all forms of cancer treatment more effective and less harmful to other body parts over the years. However, to get the best treatment, you have know what you are looking for and get to the doctors that offer it.

You do not say what kind of breast cancer you have. Cancer is an umbrella term that covers many different diseases each with its own treatment plan and prognosis. Throat cancer tends to be much more aggressive than colon cancer. Older folks with cancer often have less aggressive cancer than younger folks that develop the same kinds of cancer. Even within breast cancer some types are tons more aggressive than others. Some respond better to chemo, some worse. I have ER+/PR+ node negative breast cancer. They skipped chemo in my case (told me it wasn't worth the side effects for my kind of cancer) and put me on tamoxifen and then an aromatase inhibitor because my tumors were small-found in 2 places that necessitated a mastectomy-and hormone-controlled. If I had a larger tumor like yours but couldn't tolerate chemo, I would still do the radiation if I had a lumpectomy and then use the same hormone control. If I had a ER-/PR- (esp. if also an HER-) tumor, I would run for the chemo. Chemo is the only thing that is proven to work for those nasties and they tend to be much more aggressive. I have a friend that had the triple negative breast cancer who did the whole chemo and radiation bit. That took just about a year to finish and she taught the entire time missing only 2 days of work the whole year. She is still doing well and her cancer was first diagnosed in 2001. Another friend with inflamatory breast cancer figured she survived an extra two years (a total of 4 years from first diagnosis) thanks to the positive effects of chemo on her extremely rotten sort of disease. Her's had a doubling rate of every 27 days and that's a really bad sign by itself and her nodes were positive from the get go. But thanks to a variety of drugs the oncologists used, she stayed active right up to the last 2 1/2 weeks and lived much longer than expected, even by the doctors themselves.

I know this a decision you have to make by yourself, but if terms in the paragraph above are even a little bit confusing, you might want to talk to a different breast cancer oncologist and get his or her take on what your prognosis is with and without treatment. Second opinions can be very valuable. If the difference is only a year, maybe 6-8 months on chemo isn't worth it. If the difference is 5 years, maybe it is. Only you can decide and you need more information to go on.

C. Abbott

Thanks, C. Abbott
Just wanted to pop in and tell you how glad I was to hear about your friend who survived triple negative cancer. That is what I had, and I am now finishing up chemo prior to rads. With this type of cancer, we hear such bad news most of the time; hearing about survivors is all the more encouraging. So, thanks!