Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Breast Cancer / July 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

smaller then bigger?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Eva - 27 Jul 2004 04:35 GMT
Hi, I'm Eva.  I'm 56 years old.  I have an enormous tumor in my right breast
(8 cm, or something like 5 inches).  I am having chemo to shrink it before I
have surgery.  Okay.  I had the first chemo treatment, and it seemed to me
that I the tumor was noticeably smaller.  Except that now (11 days after 1st
chemo treatment) it seems to be bigger again.  Is this possible?  Or am I
just so crazed with shock and fear that I *imagined* it got smaller?  Thanks
for any serious response.  Have to go back for 2nd chemo treatment on
Thursday, don't want to sound like an idiot.

Tried to start shopping for a wig today but it turned out the wig store is
closed Mondays.  Still have my hair but oncologist says it will leave next
week.

Would *really* hate to lose my hair and the tumor gets *bigger* instead of
smaller.  Ha ha.
Gene Fuller - 27 Jul 2004 05:35 GMT
> Hi, I'm Eva.  I'm 56 years old.  I have an enormous tumor in my right breast
> (8 cm, or something like 5 inches).  I am having chemo to shrink it before I
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> Would *really* hate to lose my hair and the tumor gets *bigger* instead of
> smaller.  Ha ha.

If it any minor comfort to you, 8 cm is only slightly more than 3 inches.

The conversion factor is about 2.54 cm per inch.

How long did it take after the first treatment before you sensed the tumor
was smaller? I would suppose (without any experience) that it might take a
measurable amount of time.
Eva - 27 Jul 2004 11:52 GMT
> > .... I had the first chemo treatment, and it seemed to me
> > that I the tumor was noticeably smaller.  Except that now (11 days after
> 1st
> > chemo treatment) it seems to be bigger again.  Is this possible?  Or am I
> > just so crazed with shock and fear that I *imagined* it got smaller?
-----------
> How long did it take after the first treatment before you sensed the tumor
> was smaller? I would suppose (without any experience) that it might take a
> measurable amount of time.
------------
The breast surgeon and the oncologist had both told me I might notice
results within 2 days, certainly within 2 weeks.  I noticed it was smaller,
or thought I did, on the 3rd day.

Eva
Jayashree Iyer - 27 Jul 2004 16:34 GMT
Hi Eva,
My mom had chemo at first too to shrink the tumour; and she felt the
same way you did. The tumour felt softer and smaller after a few days,
but felt bigger after 10 days or so. Her oncologist said that this was
possible; the tumour might not be reacting as well to that specific
combination of drugs.He changed her drugs after one or two turns.
I believe you should have a better idea after your second turn.
Jayashree.

> > > .... I had the first chemo treatment, and it seemed to me
> > > that I the tumor was noticeably smaller.  Except that now (11 days after
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> Eva
Eva - 28 Jul 2004 00:30 GMT
> Hi Eva,
> My mom had chemo at first too to shrink the tumour; and she felt the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> combination of drugs.He changed her drugs after one or two turns.
> I believe you should have a better idea after your second turn.
------------
Thank you very much, Jayashree.  At least now I know I didn't hallucinate
it.
Eva
Gene Fuller - 27 Jul 2004 23:36 GMT
> > > .... I had the first chemo treatment, and it seemed to me
> > > that I the tumor was noticeably smaller.  Except that now (11 days after
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> Eva

Thank you, Eva. I thought that might be significant, and maybe it will be to
those who have more knowledge and experience. I hope so.

Gene
Liz & Martin Walton - 27 Jul 2004 13:02 GMT
Hi Eve,
I am Liz, I'm 52.
Like you I also had a huge tumor, 8cm x 10cm x 3cm. Mine did not show up on
mammograms or ultrasound so I did not have chemo beforehand to help shrink
it.Mine is also a recurrence. first diagnosed in 2000. I had a bi-lateral
mastectomy at the beginning of June. I am one week out of my first chemo. I
am on 6 cycles of FEC. What are you on? Feel free to e-mail me if you wish.
Will keep you in my thoughts and prayers,
Liz
> Hi, I'm Eva.  I'm 56 years old.  I have an enormous tumor in my right breast
> (8 cm, or something like 5 inches).  I am having chemo to shrink it before I
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> Would *really* hate to lose my hair and the tumor gets *bigger* instead of
> smaller.  Ha ha.
Eva - 28 Jul 2004 01:49 GMT
> Like you I also had a huge tumor, 8cm x 10cm x 3cm. Mine did not show up on
> mammograms or ultrasound so I did not have chemo beforehand to help shrink
> it.
----------
I had a perfectly normal mammogram in July 2003.  In April 2004 I first
noticed a large lump, but I did not immediately seek medical attention
because I knew that large painful lumps that suddenly appear are usually not
cancer.

Usually.  Usually.  Usually.  Usually.

By June, when I finally got around to seeing the doctor, it had gotten this
big, and quite painful, and the doctor, a breast specialist with a very good
reputation, said she'd never seen breast cancer follow a course like this in
a woman my age.  In fact, before getting the biopsy results she and her
partner both suspected I had a sarcoma, a malignant tumor of the connective
tissue, rather than actual breast cancer.

This is the way breast cancer behaves in women in their 30s, the doctors
said.  They've never before seen it behave this way in a post-menopausal
woman.  They couldn't offer any explanation as to why this would happen, and
I am terrified that I have some kind of crazy malignancy, like one of these
"superbug" viruses, that will not respond to chemo and that will kill me no
matter what anyone does.
------------
>....Mine is also a recurrence. first diagnosed in 2000. I had a bi-lateral
> mastectomy at the beginning of June.
--------------
Oh, I'm sorry.  I hope you are healing well.  I feel like I wish I'd opted
to have the surgery first, even though having the chemo first is what the
doctors recommended and it seemed reasonable at the time.  I want this thing
out of my body!
----------------
>.... I am one week out of my first chemo. I
> am on 6 cycles of FEC. What are you on?
-----------------
I haven't learned the jargon yet, so I don't know what FEC is, but I'm
taking "C&A" (?) every two weeks.  I can't remember how many times I will
have it.  Maybe 8?  I'm very overwhelmed by all the information that was
thrown at me.
------------------

> Will keep you in my thoughts and prayers,
-----------------
Thank you very much, Liz.  I certainly hope all the best for you.
Eva
Jayashree Iyer - 29 Jul 2004 16:34 GMT
Eva,
if it helps, our doctors told us that chemo before surgery is helpful
in large tumours because it reduces the size of the tumour and makes
surgery less complicated and less painful. It also hasnt proven to
cause any increase in long term fatality, i.e. it dosent mean that
anyone is going to die sooner just because they didnt have surgery
first.
Please feel free to email me if you have any concerns. I am definitely
not as experienced as most of the others here,but that dosent mean I
cant try :)
Jayashree
Eva - 30 Jul 2004 12:38 GMT
> Eva,
> if it helps, our doctors told us that chemo before surgery is helpful
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> anyone is going to die sooner just because they didnt have surgery
> first.
------------
Yes, this is exactly what I was told too.
-----------
> Please feel free to email me if you have any concerns. I am definitely
> not as experienced as most of the others here,but that dosent mean I
> cant try :)
------------
Au contraire, you've been *very* helpful to me.
Eva
Tim Jackson - 29 Jul 2004 19:32 GMT
> I had a perfectly normal mammogram in July 2003.  In April 2004 I first
> noticed a large lump, but I did not immediately seek medical attention
> because I knew that large painful lumps that suddenly appear are usually not
> cancer.
>
> Usually.  Usually.  Usually.  Usually.

Usually indeed.  My wife also had a large and painful tumour.  It did not
however appear suddenly like yours, but developed gradually.  It did not
feel like a lump, more like a swelling.  It took her doctor a long time to
admit it was cancer, or even order a mammogram.  She was about 46 when it
started.

Tim Jackson
Eva - 30 Jul 2004 12:36 GMT
> > I had a perfectly normal mammogram in July 2003.  In April 2004 I first
> > noticed a large lump, but I did not immediately seek medical attention
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> admit it was cancer, or even order a mammogram.  She was about 46 when it
> started.
---------------
OTOH, when I called my GYN and reported the large painful lump, he did not
even want to see me first, he got on the phone and told me he was sending me
directly to a breast specialist.  I was surprised, but it certainly turned
out to be the right move.
I didn't even have another mammogram.  I had a sonogram, which showed the
size and solidity of the mass, and then a core biopsy.
Just taking a guess that in this case the malpractice-lawsuit-driven US
healthcare system may have worked in my favor.
Oh, incidentally, I wasn't sure if this was a lump or a swelling either, at
first; and the doctors said it didn't feel like a typical "rock-hard breast
cancer" to them.  That was one reason why they postulated I had a sarcoma at
first.

Eva
Tim Jackson - 30 Jul 2004 16:30 GMT
> > > I had a perfectly normal mammogram in July 2003.  In April 2004 I first
> > > noticed a large lump, but I did not immediately seek medical attention
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> cancer" to them.  That was one reason why they postulated I had a sarcoma at
> first.

My wife's doctor could politely be called an arrogant cow.  She wouldn't
deviate from her initial diagnosis of mastitis and wouldn't even re-examine
when the problem persisted and further symptoms developed, but suggested my
wife increase her bra size to accommodate the swelling!.  It turned out to
be a multi-focal cancer, that's why it didn't feel hard.  My wife didn't
want to go for a second opinion because it would have meant seeing a male
doctor.  The situation only changed when her doctor went on holiday and a
new junior member of the practice (also female) saw her.

Tim
Eva - 31 Jul 2004 01:29 GMT
> My wife's doctor could politely be called an arrogant cow.  She wouldn't
> deviate from her initial diagnosis of mastitis and wouldn't even re-examine
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> doctor.  The situation only changed when her doctor went on holiday and a
> new junior member of the practice (also female) saw her.
--------
Oh my God, I'm so sorry.
Eva
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.