. . . .

I've never had any trouble getting a copy of reports.  Like Tim, I'd
suggest asking the oncologist, but in my experience here in the US, all
the doctors want/get copies of all the reports so probably both have it.
 Ask who you see next, if convenient.  Locally, and maybe US-wide (I
dunno), the surgeon continues follow-up for up to several years, but
drops back to an infrequent (probably annual) visit.

I'm more cynical/pessimistic than Tim:  I always take the report --
insist on the report -- whether anyone will explain it to me or not.  I
like to get copies, research what's on them until I understand them
(asking questions here is a good start), then cross-examine the doctor
if necessary based on that knowledge.

Typically, you'll be getting follow-up blood work, and possibly scans of
various sorts, for a long time.   I've found it's less trouble locally
to ask for a copy of the scan/bloodwork report at the time the scan is
scheduled or done -- they put "copy to patient" or the like on the
order, and I get a copy in the mail.  That way, the doctor's office
staff doesn't have to pull things out of my file for individual copying.
 (They've always been willing to do the latter, though.)

Take care,

Ann T.
Remove 'dontsendspam' from address to reply by email

Perhaps this in not a issue in the UK, but I keep a file of all my important
medical records. I learned to do this when I was helping my aged father,
often when his care got shifted from one place to another his clinical
history got lost. It helped the doctors and nurses provide care by giving
him his current medications, duplication of tests etc. When a patient is
discharged we often print out the patient discharge and hand it to the
family since it summarizes the care the received.

Personally, I keep on file, my pathology report,operative reports. my
mammogram reports ( which get mailed to me, not my request but standard
practice), ekgs, ultrasound etc. I give copies to my Primary care physician
and keep a file.

<< We do however hear of people being given their report by a clerk, without
any medical discussion or support whatever, which I think is awful.

It can have a negative impact.  Been there/done that--am in that situation now.
It has been a week since I rec'd copy of report from spine dr. who interpreted
spine mri's that radiologist reports were quite vague about.  His report of the
thoracic spine is that there are bone marrow mets in all the vertebrae unless
it is an "artifact" in the film.  It would be nice to believe that latter
but--it was done by a tech who was moonlighting at our hmo while one of the
regular techs was on vacation.  After mri was finished I remarked to tech that
it seemed to take longer than usual--and tech's response was that if he sees
anything he takes more films which is 'best practice' and commented about doing
a spect scan.  Most scans had about 8 films---this one had 17.  The report done
by the radiologist, however, was only 5  lines and didn't compare with previous
scans as usual.  The first dr. told me there wasn't anything there and that
there had been no change.  After last dr. mentioned the bone mets we asked how
it compared w/previous films.  He said what we had figured out had been going
on based on private evaluations.  It couldn't be compared since it had been
done on a different setting.  When asked why--we were at first told "don't
know" but then added that settings are change as new info comes in as to better
ways to do scans.  Each time?  When I jokingly remarked to dr. after he said he
didn't know for 2nd time--that maybe it was a way to avoid liability and
accountability in a litigious society--he smiled, seemed embarrassed, shrugged
his shoulders, and nodded affirmatively.  Then there is the report of the
cervical spine--the spine dr's report--that I should talk to the oncologist as
to whether I need prophylactic radiation or chemotherapy.  The radiologist
report was quite vague on that.  The neurologist pointed out the lesion and
said that they were going to say that it was most likely M.S. (? even though
the M.S. has been stable for 10 yrs and is under excellent control with the
medication???).  Then there is the lumbar spine report--at least the 2nd spine
dr. was honest.  The first one reported what the radiology report said--that
the 'cyst' or mass was stable on the July films compared with the films done
one year before.  Well, although that wasn't quite true--it didn't compare the
most recent films with the ones done in between where there had been a change.
The first dr. didn't want to address that issue and didn't bring in those films
to the examining room.  He told us that radiologists don't have to look at all
the films.  He later said that radiologists were human and made mistakes.  He
refused to take a look at the changed films in between.  This was after he put
the films up and hit the area with the back of his hand in a vague manner and
said there was no change.  When asked politely and humbly to please show that
area again, he hit the film in same manner.  When asked even more humbly and
politely a 3rd time, he took a closed pen and scratched the film in a vague
manner and said "I wasn't listening."  I WAS listening very carefully.  We were
too stunned to say anything since we had had the films in question already
re-read privately and it showed that not only was the item in question not
stable from a year ago but had changed since last report--may have ruptured and
no longer be there.  The 2nd dr. whom we were told to see for a second opinion
was prepared to discuss the missing films -- but did so in a manner that was
discrepant from what was going on until we did have a chance to mention private
analysis--at which time he quickly incorporated that info and changed what he
had said....
So, I guess the ongoing horrific shoulder pain I have been having for over a
year really is related to what is going on in my neck (per orthopedist report)
which he refused to discuss with referring dr. since referrring dr. referred me
for shoulder pain.  And the  discomfort in my neck for the past few mos. (which
was unbearable at night during the few weeks I tried going without the
Celebrex--on my own as an experiment) is related some metastatic process.  My
question--will something be done before it's too late???
So, what does this have to do with the first sentence.  I picked up a copy of
the report a week ago and still haven't had a chance to discuss with a dr.  My
regular onc should have discussed it w/me at my appt.  He didn't.  He wanted to
know who had ordered all the tests (spinal mri's).  He was a bit mitigated when
I said the spine dr.  He was the one who had sent me to the neurosurgeon who
had in turn sent me to the spine dr...But when I saw my regular onc he didn't
discuss the results.  It was after I saw the first spine dr. who asked  if I
had talked with the onc about my results and then his receptionist or nurse
asked me twice if I had done that--and still haven't--that has had me feeling
somewhat uneasy...
Further thought--what is more awful was the spine dr. asking if I had talked
to my onc yet and then the receptionist asking me that twice more on different
occasions (which I still have not)--rather than the report itself which is
giving some answers, albeit ones that are not what I wanted to hear).
Please forgive me for the lengthy post, and perhaps I should have changed the
subject--or added to it--but is in response to that last sentence...

That's a "TNM" staging designation.  See, for example:

http://health.yahoo.com/health/centers/breast_cancer/5003.html

I'm not sure what the "p" and "mi" are, though.  Hope someone else know.
. . .

Ann T.
Remove 'dontsendspam' from address to reply by email

This is explained pretty well on the Imaginis website
http://imaginis.com/breasthealth/staging.asp
Basically it is just a shorthand for what you have already described.
I'm not sure what the "p" and "mi" are, but they are presumably
subcategories or details of the main classifications.
At a guess "mi" means microscopic, and the "p" perhaps refers to it being
multiple sites.
They may be a local extension of the standard codes.

Tim Jackson

<< athological Stage T2 pN1mi MX -Can someone
translate?I have not been able to find an explanation/chart on this
complete "phrase" in  my reference books.
Tumor sizes for the three: 2.3 cm, 0.9 cm and 1.0 cm
One of 18 nodes - positive. The report is pretty clear except for the
above combinations. >><BR><BR>

Basically it is stage II and won't get into combinations which have already
been explained.  However, the fact that there is more than one tumor means that
it is locally advanced and considered more invasive.  Although one node was
positive, if less than 4 nodes, that is considered the best of scenarios if
positive nodes are involved.  Chemotherapy is generally recommeneded in the
treatment protocol if any nodes are positive.
Hopefully, all will be taken care of with the initial treatments which also
hopefully will be done without much discomfort.

Greta
Had a bone scan today - which my internist wanted - some hot spots
showed where x-rays formerly identified as disc and arthritis problems.
I was asked if the areas were ever biopsied.
Some progression of events since my first post! I keep thinking about
the surgeon's comment that it was "good news" because sites in breast
and node were estrogen +!
Greta