Gene Expression profiling

rholo · January 2003

I have a friend who told me about this. Your cells taken at biopsy or surgery (lumpectomy, etc.) can be checked for good signature or poor signature. Results of test will indicate whether or not you should take tamoxiphen. I had two lumpectomies last year and radiation and opted not to take tamoxiphen because I was Stage Zero with no lymph involvement. But, I always wonder if I should have taken it..Has anyone heard of this test? Has anyone had it? I know Mass. General Hospital does it but my oncology surgeon says our hospital up here in Portland Maine doesn't do it.

shirlann · January 2003

Hi, I too, was stage I with no lymph nodes and chose not to take Tamoxifen. My oncologist agreed as did the one I went to at UCLA. They have found a more aggressive uterine cancer risk than they thought occasionally turning up. I just didn't think it was necessary. We are never sure, but just have to go with the best advice, etc. I did not have that test you were talking about either. I am cancer free at 4 years. gentle hugs, Shirlann

iris48 · January 2003

8/22/01 I opted for bi-lateral mastectomy w/ sentinnel node dissection. I had no lymph node involvement with clean margins. Invasive Lobular carcinoma and one ductal in right breast another in left gave me a total of 2.4 cm. That they told me put me into a stage 2 but just barely. I didn't require radiation but I had the choice of whether or not to do chemo. The way it was explained was the double mastectomy gave me a 75% in my favor recovery rate, chemo gave me another 15% in my favor, and doing tamoxifen gave me another 5% making a total of 95% in my favor. In 7/4/00, I had a hysterectomy so that wasn't going to be a problem. The tamoxifen is suppose to address the microscopic cancer cells and since I am ER+ it would work for me. I also understand having chemo first then tamoxifen also has better statistical results. Hopes this helps. Hugs, Iris

rholo · January 2003

shirlann said:
Hi, I too, was stage I with no lymph nodes and chose not to take Tamoxifen. My oncologist agreed as did the one I went to at UCLA. They have found a more aggressive uterine cancer risk than they thought occasionally turning up. I just didn't think it was necessary. We are never sure, but just have to go with the best advice, etc. I did not have that test you were talking about either. I am cancer free at 4 years. gentle hugs, Shirlann

Thanks for you input. I had late menopause (58) and polycystic ovarian disease when I was younger so feared tamoxiphen might cause cancer in reproductive area, so was interested that ULA found more aggressive uterine cancer risk... When I discussed tamoxiphen with oncologist during a consult, he flippingly responded about my fears of uterine cancer..."So, if that happened, we'd just do a hysterectomy." Jeez, who needs that?

24242 · February 2003

I was under impression that one of the tests that our biopsy goes through takes a week or so longer because it tests for the matters ability to absorb hormones. Mine was not sensative to hormones so I was not a candidate for tamoxiphen. I didn't have an option wouldn't increase my percentages for longevity.
Tara

rholo · February 2003

24242 said:
I was under impression that one of the tests that our biopsy goes through takes a week or so longer because it tests for the matters ability to absorb hormones. Mine was not sensative to hormones so I was not a candidate for tamoxiphen. I didn't have an option wouldn't increase my percentages for longevity.
Tara

I think you are right ,Tara....The fact that they said I could take tamoxiphen means my cancer was hormone sensitive....which makes sense since I was late going into menopause and thus had a lot of estrogen. But, the choice was mine...they wouldn't tell me definitely if I should or shouldn't so I decided after research not to take it...but now I think I'd like the gene profiling test to see if I made the right decision.

hummingbyrd · February 2003

rholo said:
I think you are right ,Tara....The fact that they said I could take tamoxiphen means my cancer was hormone sensitive....which makes sense since I was late going into menopause and thus had a lot of estrogen. But, the choice was mine...they wouldn't tell me definitely if I should or shouldn't so I decided after research not to take it...but now I think I'd like the gene profiling test to see if I made the right decision.

Hi Rholo, Just now saw your post. I may be wrong about this and if I am it won't be the first or the last time I'm sure! LOL
I think the gene expression profiling is looking for a particular mutated gene. More than half the tumors have a gene called p53, that's where 'Prime-1' comes in to play. IF you have a p53 gene this Prime-1 molecule has been shown to stop tumor growth entirely, but they don't know how so they are going to 'study it for the next 5-10 yrs'. You might ask MD what benefit you could get from gene profiling? I'd like to know his/her response.
Food for thought, since you are post-menopausal you are a candidate for one of the aromatase inhibitors such as Arimidex, Femara and Aromasin. They have fewer side effects than Tamoxifen, which I took for 16 months, plus studies show they are more effective at stopping ER+ tumor growth.
Personally, I think knowing HER2nu status is very important also. If mod to strong expression of HER2 I'd be asking about treatment w/ Herceptin, IF it were in my lymph nodes. Not being in your lymph nodes is a really good sign! Good luck! I applaude you for your efforts to investigate your treatment options! It helped me feel I was in control of condition rather than 'it' controling me. Plus, with the wealth of info on the internet I found sometimes I was better informed than MD. There is a lot of new info out there and its a challenge to keep up with ALL of it. Besides, who else is going to be more concerned about what you put in your body than you?
Keep up the good work!
God bless. hummingbyrd

Gene Expression profiling

Comments

Discussion Boards