CSN Login
Members Online: 3

You are here

MX??

cahalstead
Posts: 119
Joined: Jan 2007

I was looking at the very informative response to the question regarding the path report below.

My path report had Mx and I wondered why they could not determine if it had actually metastasized to another organ? Why do some get the Mx?

Anyone have a thought on that?

Thanks.

Moesimo's picture
Moesimo
Posts: 1080
Joined: Aug 2003

I think the MX is written on the pathology report from surgery because they are only looking at the part removed and therefore can't determine if your cancer has spread. There is not enough information to determine if there is spread at that time.

Maureen

KathiM's picture
KathiM
Posts: 8077
Joined: Aug 2005

In the 'newbie staging' post below, LOUSWIFT spells it out....you are right, Maureen...'Mx means metastases and the X means unable to evaluate'.....
Sooooo many informed people here....we have one of the BEST tumor boards in the country!!!!

Hugs, kathi

Betsydoglover's picture
Betsydoglover
Posts: 1256
Joined: Jul 2005

Hi -

My experience is that it is not really clear what "MX" means. Not to scare you but I was diagnosed Stage IV based upon colon surgery. A spot showed on my liver on CT, my liver was biopsied during colon surgery and pathology results came back as adenocarcinoma in the liver, but pathology results stated as T3N1MX.

A few months after chemo, when I was NED, I discussed this with my oncologist and she said that "MX" is not uncommon from pathologists even when they see disease. I guess you could argue that information is always "incomplete" and therefore MX might be appropriate. We actually went back 12 months later and had the biopsy reexamined, but the results were the same (adenocarcinoma and normal liver tissue in the same sample).

I would discuss further with your doctor. At least in my case there was proven metastatic disease, but the path report was still "MX".

Try not to worry. Kathi and Maureen most likely have the right answers, but do check with your do, at least to put your mind at ease.

Take care,
Betsy

cahalstead
Posts: 119
Joined: Jan 2007

Okay, I'm confused. A couple of you say that they don't know because they only have the tumor to biopsy, nothing further? So how can they mark MO when they don't have any other organ to biopsy? It makes sense that they really don't know if it has metastasized without some part of another organ to biopsy.

Are you saying that you had a spot on the CT so they biopsied it and found it was adenocarcinoma.? If you hadn't had the CT they wouldn't have biopsied the liver? I had a CT before surgery, nothing showed in the liver but if there was something there they would have taken a sample to biopsy??

Sorry, I'm so confused.

Thanks for responding.

Betsydoglover's picture
Betsydoglover
Posts: 1256
Joined: Jul 2005

Hi - I don't mean to confuse you (except of course I am confused).

A few days after my colonoscopy diagnosis, I had a CT scan -showed a spot on the liver. They tried to do an MRI the day before my colon surgery, but it failed (guess I breathed, or something - possibly I was stressed - can you imagine that!).

When I had my colon surgery, the surgeon did a liver biopsy. We are not sure if he biopsied the place that showed on CT or if biopsied something he saw. In any event, the finding was adenocarcinoma in the liver. Three weeks later my oncologist ordered both CT and PET prior to start of chemio. An area lit up on PET that did not correspond to the "hypodense area" on CT. We have puzzled much about this. One theory is that there was a metastatic lesion that was not visible on CT, but showed on PET. We'll never know since my scans, both PET and CT, have been negative since early September 2005. The "hypodense" liver lesion no longer shows up, but neither does the area of "hypermetabolic activity" which never matched the CT lesion.

I am not sure my surgeon would have ever biopsied my liver if it hadn't been for the original CT scan, but I don't actually know that. Try not to worry. Wish I could help more.

Betsy

cahalstead
Posts: 119
Joined: Jan 2007

I think I understand what you're saying. You had a CT before the surgery which showed a spot on the liver, therefore the need for a biopsy. I had a CT prior to surgery which the only thing I really recall was that there was an enlarged node. I had a CT post surgery and the node was gone. I'm guessing I didn't have anything that showed up as a "questionable liver lesion" (thank you God). So I'm assuming that since there wasn't anything to biopsy, other than the tumor, they could not determine if there was a metastasizes.

My brain is tired trying to figure this one out! Doesn't take much these days.

Anyway, thanks so much for enlightening me.

Char

Subscribe to Comments for "MX??"