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 / November 2003

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

radiation problems

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
lady glen - 16 Nov 2003 01:36 GMT
Hi everyone:

I'm supposed to be having radiation but the first three sessions have
not gone well.

I had a lumpectomy with negative nodes. The tumour was .9 cm receptor
positive and the operation went well, edges clear. I have started
taking tamoxifen.

A few months back, I posted here about declining any treatment. I
received many great responses from people. In part, it was because of
the responses I received from you that I found the strength to go
ahead with the operation, rather than burying my head in the sand.

At this point, I would like to do everything I can to prevent
recurrence. I know that radiation is part of that, but it is proving
very tough sledding for me. I am quite fat (let's not beat around the
bush here!) and my breasts are large. After my surgery, I was referred
to a medical oncologist. This man asked me if I had ever thought of
having a breast reduction. I asked if this had anything to do with my
cancer. He said no. I said, then I don't want to hear about it. He
said, well, OK, but I am just trying to do something positive for you.
Friends, let me tell you that I have never had any problem with the
size of my breasts. Yes, I am fat, and I have large breasts. But, when
I'm thin, my breasts are a normal size.

Needless to say, this did not leave me feeling very happy about him. I
guess the incident really festered with me. I felt that it was
inappropriate of him to suggest cosmetic surgery when my appointment
was to hear news about my cancer.

I mention this as background on why I am feeling angry with doctors
and with the cancer centre.

Anyway, throughout the radiation planning and the first three
appointments, I have been told that the size of my breast and my
"enormous" size (in the words of one of the planning technicians) is
posing a major problem for them in conducting radiation. I am just not
coping very well with running the gamut of simulation/planning and
treatment, each time being told to stay still for long periods (like
45 plus minutes at a time), being told 'breath normally' repeatedly
(even though I *am* breathing normally!), being told again and again,
that, if the technician could just frank about it, it is the size of
my breasts that it the problem. I mean, what do they want me to do
about it????

If I had known this was going to be so challenging, I might have opted
to have the whole breast removed off the bat. However, in the Canadian
system here where I live, the surgery is first and then the oncologist
comes into the picture. I was never given any options other than
lumpectomy and lymph node dissection.

To top it all off, then I tried to call the radiation oncologist to
discuss my problems and concerns, I ran into a hard-boiled
receptionist who tried to nitpick with me about why I wanted to talk
to the doctor. "About my treatment" was not good enough for her so I
told her that I pissed off and I wanted to talk to the doctor. The
receptionist stated that she was not paid to tolerate abuse and
slammed down the phone. I was very shocked by this, as I had not meant
to abuse the receptionist. I was not mad at her and I did not state
that I was mad at her. But, replaying the conversation in my head, I
realize what it must have sounded like from her point of view.
Therefore, I called back and apologized, hoping we could start off the
on the right foot. But, when I apologized, she said, well, she didn't
have to take any abuse, and went on to tell me that, if I'd made that
statement in the cancer centre, I would have been escorted to the door
by security. I was really shocked as I was trying to apologize to her
and to make sure the doctor would get my message. Instead, I burst
into tears and told her that I would not be the patient of this doctor
any more as I was quitting radiation therapy. I then called up the
unit and told them the same.

Following this, I discussed the situation with my family doctor, a
woman I do not know well. I've recently moved and started over with a
new doctor. This young woman turned out to be great and she has called
the radiation oncologist to discuss what had happened.

I just can't stand being poked and prodded any more in this radiation
therapy. I am just at the end of my rope with it. Yet, as I understand
it, it is essential to preventing recurrence. I am planning to discuss
the situation with the radiation oncologist at my appointment on
Tuesday. Of course, I will have to get past the receptionist first!

I would appreciate feedback on the importance of radiation and on the
general issues of just feeling fed up with dealing with
doctors/technicians, etc.
Jackie - 16 Nov 2003 02:36 GMT
Lady Glen, everyone I came in contact with during my treatment was very
pleasant and positive.  I am sorry you have not had that experience.  I am
very large breasted also.  It *does* make the treatment more difficult
because there is more tissue to deal with.  That is simply a fact of life
for those of us with large breasts.  However, professionals should be
professional and not be making negative comments.  The simulation is the
most difficult part.  Once that is done, things are much simpler and
quicker.  In my case, I had to put on a fishnet sort of tubing that expanded
remarkably.  It helped to hold my breast still and flattened me out as much
as possible. The flattening out is important because those of us with large
breasts and fair skin are more apt to burn in the fold beneath the breast.
I did have some burning that was very uncomfortable, but the radiation
oncologist prescribed a soothing lotion and had me lie down and let air get
to the burned area.  He said use a hair dryer on the cool setting.  This
helped the area to dry up and heal.

You can do this.  It is not easy, but you can do it.  It is only a few weeks
of your life and when you look at the long-term benefit and reducing the
probability of having cancer again, it is well worth the time and
discomfort.  That's just my opinion.  Others here had little
discomfort/burning.

I wish you well in your journey.

God Bless,
Jackie S.

> Hi everyone:
>
[quoted text clipped - 82 lines]
> general issues of just feeling fed up with dealing with
> doctors/technicians, etc.
Mary Fisher - 16 Nov 2003 10:40 GMT
Hello lady glen,

> I'm supposed to be having radiation but the first three sessions have
> not gone well.

I'm sorry about that.

> A few months back, I posted here about declining any treatment. I
> received many great responses from people. In part, it was because of
> the responses I received from you that I found the strength to go
> ahead with the operation, rather than burying my head in the sand.

That was a wise decision.

> At this point, I would like to do everything I can to prevent
> recurrence. I know that radiation is part of that, but it is proving
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> cancer. He said no. I said, then I don't want to hear about it. He
> said, well, OK, but I am just trying to do something positive for you.

I think that was a very unprofessional thing for the onc to say. It's not up
to him to make judgements about anyone's shape, it suggests that he would
prefer smaller breasts or that he thought that you would. If anyone said
that to me they'd get short shrift. I mean, what if you suggested that he
might benefit from a nose job or treatment for halitosis ... ?

> Needless to say, this did not leave me feeling very happy about him. I
> guess the incident really festered with me. I felt that it was
> inappropriate of him to suggest cosmetic surgery when my appointment
> was to hear news about my cancer.

I couldn't agree more.

> I mention this as background on why I am feeling angry with doctors
> and with the cancer centre.

But one doctor doesn't make a cancer centre. I've come across doctors during
my five and a half years of bc who have made me irritated or even angry but
I still have faith in the general system. Individuals can be dealt with as
single units and not affect your attitude to the whole of your treatment.

> Anyway, throughout the radiation planning and the first three
> appointments, I have been told that the size of my breast and my
> "enormous" size (in the words of one of the planning technicians)

That's unforgivable too.

The trouble is that some of these folk are human and prone to being
influenced by conventions. The should NOT let their opinions creep into
their professional life but we don't have to suffer their faults. Explaining
to them why you object is one way of dealing with it, making an official,
written complaint is another. When I was told that I was 'cured' at my
latest examination I not only told the doctor what I felt but my breast care
nurse, who also had a strong word with the doctor. They have to learn and if
we say nothing they never will, they'll go on thinking that they know
everything. They don't, unless they've had to run the gamut of cancer and
its treatment.

> If I had known this was going to be so challenging, I might have opted
> to have the whole breast removed off the bat. However, in the Canadian
> system here where I live, the surgery is first and then the oncologist
> comes into the picture.

That sounds odd ...

> I was never given any options other than
> lumpectomy and lymph node dissection.

That's sad. I was given as long as I wanted to make an informed decision
(Leeds, England). I thought I knew what I wanted but had to compromise after
talking to my husband. I'm not sorry that I did that, act in haste and
repent at leisure is true of many situations.

> To top it all off, then I tried to call the radiation oncologist to
> discuss my problems and concerns, I ran into a hard-boiled
> receptionist who tried to nitpick with me about why I wanted to talk
> to the doctor.

None of her business.

> "About my treatment" was not good enough for her

Perhaps, "It's a confidential matter" might have worked better - but we only
learn by experience ...

> so I
> told her that I pissed off and I wanted to talk to the doctor. The
> receptionist stated that she was not paid to tolerate abuse and
> slammed down the phone.

LOL!

> I was very shocked by this, as I had not meant
> to abuse the receptionist. I was not mad at her and I did not state
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> any more as I was quitting radiation therapy. I then called up the
> unit and told them the same.

That's very understandable. They should understand how sensitive anyone is
during this time. Radiation in itself can cause emotional feelings - in my
case because of the pain of swelling and skin damage. Although I'm normally
a tough guy I was very sensitive and I found that formally talking to a
senior nurse, who was understanding, was a great help. But I didn't have to
go through an unfeeling secretary ...

> Following this, I discussed the situation with my family doctor, a
> woman I do not know well. I've recently moved and started over with a
> new doctor. This young woman turned out to be great and she has called
> the radiation oncologist to discuss what had happened.

That's very encouraging.

> I just can't stand being poked and prodded any more in this radiation
> therapy. I am just at the end of my rope with it. Yet, as I understand
> it, it is essential to preventing recurrence. I am planning to discuss
> the situation with the radiation oncologist at my appointment on
> Tuesday. Of course, I will have to get past the receptionist first!

You simply have to say that it's a personal and confidential matter. Don't
lose your temper and try not to cry, just be polite but firm. I'll be
thinking of you.

> I would appreciate feedback on the importance of radiation and on the
> general issues of just feeling fed up with dealing with
> doctors/technicians, etc.

Here are my feelings, others might be different. We're all individuals, this
is really the point of the whole situation. Our different responses MUST be
allowed for by professionals.

Hugs,

Mary
J - 16 Nov 2003 10:48 GMT
> At this point, I would like to do everything I can to prevent
> recurrence. I know that radiation is part of that, but it is proving
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> size of my breasts. Yes, I am fat, and I have large breasts. But, when
> I'm thin, my breasts are a normal size.

Hi, I'm on the wrong newsgroup, but since I'm here and you're in Canada...

I read your previous post in Google and I understand your not liking
doctors much.

I'm trying to wear two hats here.
On the one hand, when the onc said "no", he "missed the boat" bigtime.
The onc could have then segue-wayed into a discussion as to what to expect
for radiation therapy, since the other poster clarified that it takes a
little longer for rads with larger breasts.  But at that point, perhaps
tempers were flaring (stress) and/or he was afraid you would view that as
an excuse for him to try to again "push" cosmetic?

Perhaps he was "pushing" cosmetic surgery or perhaps he was "forward
thinking"?
I see some on the fibro or lupus newsgroups, who've had reductions because
of aging and severe back pain.
In Canada, I think, the reduction would be covered by the Provincial
medicare if done at a cancer clinic and in combination with a cancer dx.
Not, if it was done later.  It would be "cosmetic" and would have to be
paid for by you. Is my non experienced understanding. So that issue could
have been discussed, then "tossed" if you still felt strongly about that.

I also see your point about surgery first, then oncologist later.  But
then the onc needs the pathology report before he can discuss treatment
options..so we're darned if we do or don't on that, I guess.

I take it they get offended with the term "pissed off" <g>.. perhaps
"concerned" would be more acceptable to them?
One can attract more flies with honey..is that the expression?
On the other hand, in some situations, perhaps the receptionist bears the
brunt of patient stress and frustration..she's human too and probably gets
stressed.

Hopefully they'll have the fishnet sort of tubing that Jackie mentioned.

I know what you mean about the breathing thing. CT-scans... they're saying
"breath normally, stop", then I try to expire slowly to relax while
they're saying "take a deep breath"..we're all out of sync. I was getting
ticked too, but did not want to "waste" the test so I hear ya on the
frustration.

I'm glad the new doctor is intervening on your behalf.

Take a deep breath before you go in, paste your best smile on, hand her
some candies and duck ! <g>
Seriously, I wish you the best and hope this can all get squared away so
you can proceed with your treatments and everything goes smoothly from
here on in.
Since you had clear margins, the radiation therapy will "nibble up" any
residual cells, so I see that as a good thing.
Try and stay in touch more frequently with the newsgroup. I'm sure they'll
help you along.

Relax, don't stress out, it'll be over before you know it.
Best,
J-no expert
Tim Jackson - 16 Nov 2003 12:41 GMT
> A few months back, I posted here about declining any treatment. I
> received many great responses from people. In part, it was because of
> the responses I received from you that I found the strength to go
> ahead with the operation, rather than burying my head in the sand.

Well done you!  Go girl!

> [medical oncologist] asked me if I had ever thought of
> having a breast reduction. I asked if this had anything to do with my
> cancer. He said no. I said, then I don't want to hear about it. ....
> I felt that it was
> inappropriate of him to suggest cosmetic surgery when my appointment
> was to hear news about my cancer.

Judging from the rest of your post then it was, while not about your cancer,
significant to your treatment.  Sadly he failed to get this across at the
time.  I think he was embarrassed.

> If I had known this was going to be so challenging, I might have opted
> to have the whole breast removed off the bat. However, in the Canadian
> system here where I live, the surgery is first and then the oncologist
> comes into the picture. I was never given any options other than
> lumpectomy and lymph node dissection.

This is normal practice.  It is the surgeon's job to make these decisions
with you.  I do feel that in the lumpectomy/mastectomy debate, mastectomy
has become a poor relation because patients have a not entirely accurate
impression that lumpectomy is less disfiguring, and don't appreciate that it
is a simple operation with easier recovery.  This to such an extetent that
perhaps surgeons no longe feel it worth mentioning as an option.  Being
large breasted, a full mastectomy might have given you postural problems due
to the imbalance unless you had reduction on the contralateral breast too,
or bilateral mastectomies, so perhaps he had this in mind too.

> To top it all off, then I tried to call the radiation oncologist to
> discuss my problems and concerns, I ran into a hard-boiled
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> any more as I was quitting radiation therapy. I then called up the
> unit and told them the same.

This is really annoying.  I have experienced similar attitudes.  It really
annoys me that some medical staff, particularly administrators, faced with
an emotional and distraught patient, think in terms punishing the patient
rather than of solving the problem, even to the extent of legal action.
This receptionist is clearly in need of some more extensive training in
diplomacy in order to do her job properly.  It might be worth filing a
formal complaint as the receptionist is preventing the patient getting
treatment, although that does not solve the immediate medical problem.

Goddammit what the hell has the world come to when a cancer treatment centre
throws patients out for saying they are "pissed off".  Every cancer patient
has a damned good reason to be "pissed off"!   Is this the Thought Police or
what?  *&^%***&!!!

Perhaps there was some sigificance in her reference to her salary.  To cut
costs we hire the lowest paid staff, then are surprised that they lack the
skills to do the job.  Pay peanuts - get monkeys.

On the other hand you could have bitten the bullet and simply told the nosy
receptionist that the technicians were having difficulties with your
treatment and you wanted to review it.  It may be none of her business but
it gets you what you want.  That's what diplomacy is all about.

> Following this, I discussed the situation with my family doctor, a
> woman I do not know well. I've recently moved and started over with a
> new doctor. This young woman turned out to be great and she has called
> the radiation oncologist to discuss what had happened.

Is there another rad-onc in the area your doctor could refer you to?  My
wife had a stand up shouting match with a clinical oncology registrar who
was well out of order (yes my wife was out of order too, but she was in pain
and dying, the doctor wasn't), which resulted in us getting referred to
another oncology consultant in the same large hospital.  In fact she still
got her radiation from the same consultant, but didn't have to deal with his
juniors.

> I would appreciate feedback on the importance of radiation and on the
> general issues of just feeling fed up with dealing with
> doctors/technicians, etc.

Well you could go back to the surgeon and ask for a simple mastectomy, then
you wouldn't need radiation but that seems like a surgical sledgehammer to
crack an administrative nut (in both senses).

Tim Jackson
lady glen - 16 Nov 2003 19:17 GMT
Thanks for all of your support. I really need it. Several of you have
made the excellent point that one catches more flies with honey than
vinegar. This is very true, in my experience. Last week, when all of
this happened (Thursday), I have to say that I was really at the end
of my emotional rope. I told the treatment people that. I used those
exact words - I'm at the end of my rope. I had to leave the treatment
when they wanted to send me back down to planning for the third time
(second time that day). I was on the verge of tears and I have major
doubts as to whether or not I can go on with anything because of how
low I feel.

The best thing would be if someone could come with me to my
appointments. This is what I discussed with my family doctor - getting
some kind of help, someone to talk to or a volunteer from the cancer
society or something who could come in with me.

I do not have anyone who can come in with me (e.g. friend/family). It
would take a lot of time for someone as each appointment has taken
about 2 hours so far (except for the first one - almost three hours).

When I see the rad onc, I will ask her what the med onc said about
breast reduction. However, I clearly asked him if his suggestion about
reduction had to do with my cancer and he said no. If he thought it
was relevant, he should have explained how a breast reduction could be
worked into the radiation schedule. He did not suggest that this was
something that I needed to do before getting radiation or as related
to the cancer treatment. Aside from the radiation treatments, my
breast size is not a problem to me. He referred to this when he told
me that he was just trying to suggest something positive "for me".
Yet, all he succeeded in doing was in making me feel stigmatized for
being fat and having large breasts.

Tim, I think you are right that he was embarrassed and uncomfortable
with my size. It's tough not to take on other people's feelings of
embarrassment and shame when you have been fat all your life and
always felt rejected by others because of it. Perhaps, because of
this, I read him wrong and misunderstood the whole situation. But, if
he felt this was an issue that affected my treatment, he should have
explained how the breast reduction was linked to cancer treatment.
Instead, he denied the link.

Further, this onc did not discuss the relationship between obesity and
breast cancer. For me, this is really the issue. My breasts are large
because I am large, not because I have large breasts. My own internet
research indicates that obese women like me are more likely to get
breast cancer and more likely to have a recurrence. In that light, he
could have asked me about my weight problem, how long I'd had it, what
I thought had caused it, etc. He could have emphasized the importance
of my obesity in relation to the potential for recurrence. He could
have discussed side effects of tamoxifen (weight gain!) and whether or
not the reduction in breast cancer risk from this drug would outweigh
(!) the gain from using this drug.

I feel that their embarrassment and unwillingness to deal with the
whole obesity issue leads the medical system not to help obese people
to look into medical factors that are contributing to their weight
problem (e.g. thyroid) or hook us up with a good nutritionist or
whatever might be needed to help us deal with the issue and to improve
our odds. The medical system – like society – seems to assume that
people are fat solely through their own fault and that, somehow, this
means that they are not obligated to offer assistance. In this light,
I find it ironic that this guy would offer me a breast reduction.

From what I understand about obesity and breast cancer, it is more
important for me to lose weight than to have radiation therapy in
terms of the odds of recurrence. I feel that the med onc had an
obligation to make this clear.
Tim Jackson - 16 Nov 2003 20:32 GMT
> Tim, I think you are right that he was embarrassed and uncomfortable
> with my size. It's tough not to take on other people's feelings of
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> explained how the breast reduction was linked to cancer treatment.
> Instead, he denied the link.

I think meeting a perceived hostile response he regretted having made the
suggestion and was trying to back out under the first law of holes: "when
you find you're in one - stop digging".  He didn't feel capable of seeing
the discussion through to a useful outcome.  Sadly doctors' training rates
communication skills very low down on the scale of usefulness, or did when
the current generation were in training.

> I feel that their embarrassment and unwillingness to deal with the
> whole obesity issue leads the medical system not to help obese people
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> means that they are not obligated to offer assistance. In this light,
> I find it ironic that this guy would offer me a breast reduction.

This blame game cuts both ways, the medicos find themselves in something of
a no-win situation.  If they tell you the way to solve your problems is to
lose weight then they are accused of prejudice or of blaming the patient for
their illness.  If they ignore it and try to work around it they are accused
of propagating the taboo.  The way I see it the only moral course is to cut
the cr*p, tell it like it is and damn the torpedoes, but that's not what
happens.  From a medical point of view obesity is often a terribly
intractable problem and the tendancy to treat it as a given is somewhat
understandable.

You feel bad if he doesn't tell you you ought to lose weight, but you feel
worse if he does tell you and you can't, it might even make matters worse
through depression.

> From what I understand about obesity and breast cancer, it is more
> important for me to lose weight than to have radiation therapy in
> terms of the odds of recurrence. I feel that the med onc had an
> obligation to make this clear.

I'd be cautious about jumping to that conclusion, certainly both radiation
and weight loss count in your favour but I'd hate to see them considered as
alternatives.

Tim
Ray B - 24 Nov 2003 17:05 GMT
> > Tim, I think you are right that he was embarrassed and uncomfortable
> > with my size. It's tough not to take on other people's feelings of
[quoted text clipped - 46 lines]
>
> Tim

Just for your information, there is a new UK web site to locate your
local, fully qualified nutritionist at www.FindMyNutritionist.co.uk or
take a look at www.findanutritionist.com for the USA.
Kaye301 - 18 Nov 2003 16:23 GMT
ladyglencora wrote<< I do not have anyone who can come in with me (e.g.
friend/family). It
would take a lot of time for someone as each appointment has taken
about 2 hours so far (except for the first one - almost three hours) >>

Just had a thought--you might want to explore a breast cancer support group
through an organization such as the Wellness Community or American Cancer
Society.  Often, women meet others with similar needs who may be available to
provide this type of assistance.

<< I feel that their embarrassment and unwillingness to deal with the
whole obesity issue leads the medical system not to help obese people
to look into medical factors that are contributing to their weight
problem (e.g. thyroid) or hook us up with a good nutritionist or
whatever might be needed to help us deal with the issue and to improve
our odds. The medical system – like society – seems to assume that
people are fat solely through their own fault and that, somehow, this
means that they are not obligated to offer assistance. In this light,
I find it ironic that this guy would offer me a breast reduction.>>

You are so right on this issue.  It is one of the most neglected areas of
medicine.  I was so outraged when the petite, single female plastic surgeon
told me I had to lose weight before I could have reconstruction.  I was about
25 to 35 lbs overweight--but not 'obese.'   Interestingly, after I did lose the
weight, she was all sweet and friendly.  Then for some unknown reason I gained
half the weight back that I lost and was again rejected--think it is more due
to her skills than anything else.  She hand picks those who have the 'right'
body type for her to work on.  
In addition she showed me the outdated weight charts of what someone of my body
type should weight.  Those are so unrealistic.  It might be okay if I were a
child or teen but not a mature adult.  I would literally have to become
anorexic to weigh the amounts listed on those charts.  Then again, maybe we are
supposed to eat like that as grown adults...

<<From what I understand about obesity and breast cancer, it is more
important for me to lose weight than to have radiation therapy in
terms of the odds of recurrence. I feel that the med onc had an
obligation to make this clear.>>

That may be true but they aren't trained in that.  Unfortunately western
medicine stresses cookbook medicine and sorts each problem into its own
specialty or  category--and does not consider the person as a
'whole' functioning unit.
A man - 18 Nov 2003 19:48 GMT
> Goddammit what the hell has the world come to when a cancer treatment centre
> throws patients out for saying they are "pissed off".  Every cancer patient
> has a damned good reason to be "pissed off"!   Is this the Thought Police or
> what?  *&^%***&!!!

Welcome to Socialized Medicine! Where quality goes down and cost
goes up! Woohoo! Not that US medicine is any better, where the
rich get treatment, the lucky have good insurance, and the poor
just pay more taxes.

Signature

"Tis better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and
remove all doubt."

Prof Who - 16 Nov 2003 16:25 GMT
Sorry you had such a bad time with the medical rpofessionals, that is awful.

You may wnat to revisit the mastectomy decision again, as radiation is harder
to do with large breasts.  I think basically there is so much tissue that the
radiation beam loses its "trajectory" (poor way to say it but I'm a layman) and
so there's less assurance it is doing its job getting to the bad area within
your breast (where the cancer cells were).  

so from an effectiveness standpoint, you might be better off with the M.

I just wish that you could have been told this from the get go, to avoid all of
the pain and stress you've been through so far.
madiba - 16 Nov 2003 20:51 GMT
lady glen <ladyglencora@yahoo.com> wrote
<snip>
> At this point, I would like to do everything I can to prevent recurrence.
> I know that radiation is part of that, but it is proving very tough
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> fat, and I have large breasts. But, when I'm thin, my breasts are a normal
> size.
In an ideal world you would have had time to lose weight before
treatment began and saved yourself these hassles. Perhaps the onc's idea
of a breast reduction wasn't so bad after all, but it was a bit late.
The op could have been done at the time of tumor removal. As a med. onc.
he perhaps did not know about the hassles involved with RT of a large
breast.

<snip>

> Anyway, throughout the radiation planning and the first three
> appointments, I have been told that the size of my breast and my
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> the technician could just frank about it, it is the size of my breasts
> that it the problem. I mean, what do they want me to do about it????
Not very diplomatic, are they?
You're also getting more lung irradiated than the average patient...

> If I had known this was going to be so challenging, I might have opted to
> have the whole breast removed off the bat. However, in the Canadian system
> here where I live, the surgery is first and then the oncologist comes into
> the picture. I was never given any options other than lumpectomy and lymph
> node dissection.
Mastectomy is a rather dramatic solution for a T1N0M0 tumor..

<hassles with bolshy receptionist snipped>

> Following this, I discussed the situation with my family doctor, a woman I
> do not know well. I've recently moved and started over with a new doctor.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> situation with the radiation oncologist at my appointment on Tuesday. Of
> course, I will have to get past the receptionist first!
In most centers the patient is seen at least once a week by her rad.
onc. during treatment..
Make sure you have spoken to one before making drastic decisions like
stopping RT or having a mastectomy!
Ask the rad. onc. about other options. Seeing its an early stage tumor
(grading?) perhaps they can be creative and use a smaller field, or use
aquaplast (plastic-type netting) or skip/reduce the ext. RT and go for a
higher dose/larger volume of brachytherapy (internal RT with needle-type
catheters), where 'bigger is better' as far as breasts go.

> I would appreciate feedback on the importance of radiation and on the
> general issues of just feeling fed up with dealing with
> doctors/technicians, etc.
I know how frustrating external RT of large breasts can be, the side
effects for the patient are also worse. Please speak to your rad. onc.

Signature

madiba

lady glen - 17 Nov 2003 18:11 GMT
down@thekraal.com (madiba) wrote in message news:<1g4jbzr.117os6j1ozhi0rN%> Ask the rad. onc. about other options. Seeing its an early stage tumor
> (grading?) perhaps they can be creative and use a smaller field, or use
> aquaplast (plastic-type netting) or skip/reduce the ext. RT and go for a
> higher dose/larger volume of brachytherapy (internal RT with needle-type
> catheters), where 'bigger is better' as far as breasts go.

Thank you for this suggestion. I will discuss this with her when I
have my appointment tomorrow.
lady glen - 18 Nov 2003 21:09 GMT
ladyglencora@yahoo.com (lady glen) wrote in message

Hi everyone:

I would like to thank everyone who has written to me. You have all
helped me a lot and I will be forever grateful.
Well, to bring you up to date on my radiation, I had a meeting with
the rad onc this morning and she and I decided to stop the radiation
treatment. She told me that, quite aside from my own problems in
coping with the invasiveness of the procedure, it was likely that they
would have to continue to go back to the drawing board on planning at
least one more time and that, down the road, I would have painful side
effects. She told me that it was likely that my skin would be so
irritated that I would not be able to wear a bra and I might have to
go on painkillers for weeks, even after the treatments were over. She
reviewed my case and said that, had she been involved in the decision
to have radiation, she might have recommended against, given my
feelings about the procedure, combined with the difficulties she knew
it would cause. She told me that there is no certitude on the effect
of radiation on stray cells, surrounding tissue etc in the case of a
very small and compact tumor. She said that the protocols are based on
average women and that they don't suit every case. In my case, she
said, taking everything into account, she would recommend that the
procedure be stopped. She said that, assuming I do the follow-up and
stay on tamoxifen, my chances of survival will not be affected but
that my chances of recurrences *might* be somewhat greater. She says
the jury is still out on the effect of radiation on recurrence for
small tumours. In any case, she said that, given the characteristics
of my tumor, node negativity and estrogen receptor status, that the
marginal benefits of radiation were likely not worth it for me.
This woman is supposed to be one of the top rac oncs in Toronto. Too
bad I didn't talk to her more right off the bat and I would have saved
myself all the time and trouble. But, as she said, the system tends to
work with the normal templates and does not really allow for as much
flexibility as it should in the assessment stage.
Of course, I will be careful with follow-up and regular screenings and
I continue in one of the big drug trials as well. So, I will have many
frequent tests there too.
madiba - 29 Nov 2003 09:03 GMT
> ladyglencora@yahoo.com (lady glen) wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> decided to stop the radiation treatment. She told me that, quite aside
> from my own problems in coping with the invasiveness of the procedure,
Don't like this bit, she trying to turn it around and say you're the
problem. External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) is not invasive.

>it was likely that they would have to continue to go back to the
>drawing board on planning at least one more time and that, down the
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>certitude on the effect of radiation on stray cells, surrounding tissue
>etc in the case of a very small and compact tumor.
She is saying RT is not necessary for BC.  90% of BCs are staged T1
nowdays.

>She said that the
>protocols are based on average women and that they don't suit every
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>greater. She says the jury is still out on the effect of radiation on
>recurrence for small tumours.
No. Radiation reduces the local recurrence rate by 16%.
Did you ask her about brachytherapy (BT)? I still think you should
consider it instead of EBRT.
Look into the work being done by Dr. Frank Vicini of William Beaumont
Hospital in Royal Oak, Mich. His patients get a week of brachytherapy
instead of the usual 6 weeks EBRT. The results have been as good as the
traditional RT so far. The long-term jury is still out here, but those
patients will definitely have better local control than those without
any RT..
>In any case, she said that, given the
>characteristics of my tumor, node negativity and estrogen receptor
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>continue in one of the big drug trials as well. So, I will have many
>frequent tests there too.
Good luck, and remember to keep an eye on those tumor markers. They tend
to predict your future more accurately than horoscopes can...

Signature

madiba

Kaye301 - 18 Nov 2003 16:06 GMT
Lady glen wrote << I would appreciate feedback on the importance of radiation
and on the
general issues of just feeling fed up with dealing with
doctors/technicians, etc.>>

I don't have any statistics off the top of my head but I do know that radiation
is important after a lumpectomy.  It is of less necessity after mastectomy
although still needed in some cases.  I can't give you any experienced-based
info. re lumpectomy, since I had a mastectomy, although still had radiation.  I
did learn from all the other gals with whom I went to radiation with--that I
had it alot easier after mastectomy than lumpectomy--much less pain, less
burning, and less irritation.  
We (all those who had radiation) were instructed to slather 100% aloe
gel(without any coloring) thickly to all areas being radiated frequently--every
few hours and/or more often if needed--except NOT for either 2 to 4 hours
before treatment.  Then if one still had difficulty they were given another
cream (baclofen? or biofene?--can't quite remember).
However, you should have in no way been treated the way you were.  You might
want to file a complaint.  Is it all possible for you to seek treatment
elsewhere?  If not--due to insurance purposes--you might have some legal
recourse for getting the offending medical facility to cover treatment for you
elsewhere.  I just heard on the news yesterday where an obese man won a
settlement after being fired from his position because of his weight gain.  
At a time when one is dealing with cancer, one does not need to be made to feel
guilty or inadequate.   Thin and physically fit women get breast cancer, too!  
Not all obese individuals have health problems either.  One of our closest
friends, a former football player, has a weight problem--over 400 lbs--but has
always been healthy (and in over 20 years has used very few of his sick
days--in fact puts in alot of unpaid overtime).
As far as recommending breast reduction, many dr's do recommend it for
back-related problems.  My sister's dr. recommended it for her as well,
although she said that she would have to lose weight first.  I have two cousins
(on both sides of my family--neither of whom have breast cancer, although it
runs in both families) who did it on the recommendation of their dr's.  One of
the cousin's who had it done, also had to wait until she lost weight first as
well.  
As far as having it done for cancer--my surgeon told me that she recommends it
to large busted women after a single mastectomy and told us about an early, if
not her first case, where it wasn't done, and the woman had a problem with
balance and fell often as a a result--and it was for that reason it was
recommended.
As far as it being done for cancer, I guess insurance companies wouldn't
recognize it as a reason for getting it done.  I have no idea whether it would
lessen one's risk for developing cancer in the remaining tissue if there were
less of it there or not.  Very small breasted women develop breast cancer, too.
I do think it may be easier to be detected through the less expensive
techniques (i.e. mammograms and self exams) than the more expensive procedures
(MRI or ultrasound).
 
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.