Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Breast Cancer / November 2003
radiation problems
|
|
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).
|
|
|