Your oncologist didnt know this? I am afraid your original post was not
so clear on that point.

Isn't Google wonderful.  Here is the rest of that text in a lab's spec
sheet,
and also a statement that the "reference interval" (normal range) is 0-40.
http://www.aruplab.com/guides/ug/tests/0080392.jsp
I thought that text block looked unique enough to search for and would
probably be online somewhere. It's not quite the same but obviously derives
from the same source.  I don't know why your report specifies 'normal' to 3
decimal places when it is obviously such a hit-and-miss thing.  I guess
that's a calibration adjustment for the particular machine or reagent batch.

Tim

Kaye301 wrote:  Hello:

Thank you so much for your answer.  I have tried to find the norm but to
no avail.  Your post was truly appreciated.

My husband and I both thank you.

Laura K.*

Kathie wrote: <<  I was diagnosed with mets to both lungs in
September and my CEA test came out at 1.8. In July 2001, after initial
treatment, it was 1.1. When I saw the current 1.8 I was hoping that the
x-rays and CT scan might have been wrong about metastatic nodules in
both lungs, but the onc said 'No'. >>

When my CT scan last year stated that the single node in the hilar region was
"stable" I freaked because none of the previous scans ever mentioned it.  My
tumor markers were okay at the time.  The node was 1.0 cm.  I have had
difficulties upon exhalation which developed after my last taxotere.  It didn't
happen after the radiation.  
It (the fluid like feeling) went away about 2 mos. after I stopped the
Herceptin and about one month after I started Celebrex, although a slight
wheeze-like feeling was still there, but that went away the next month after I
doubled the Celebrex.  That was when I had that CT scan that reported that node
to be
stable--so my questions were did I have the beginnings of congestive heart
failure or was there a malignant node there that was helped by the Celelbrex.
Then last June, the wheeze-like feeling (although definately not an asthmatic
'wheeze'--more like an added vibration upon exhalation) returned.  It remained
until after I again doubled the Celebrex--to the maximum safe dosage which has
optimal anti-tumor effect.  (Half that dosage has more stabilizing effect on
tumors--at least the ones studied in colon cancer).
So, when others talk about cancer returning, there is no consistent standard
being used to determine.  From what I gather what one cancer center or
radiologist and oncologist may report and treat as 'recurrence' or metastases
may be ignored by another cancer center because of its relatively small size.
So, how can one say that early treatment is not beneficial if  there are no
consistent or standardized ways being used to determine---or rather if the
standardized ways in place are not the most effective for determining earliest
of recurrence,
In regard to use of tumor markers, I had wondered why they were not in use in
helping diagnose breast cancer.  Both my CEA and CA 27-29 were elevated at time
of dx.  My CEA was around 13 and my CA 27-29 was 58.  I then, recently learned,
that tumor markers are NOT generally elevated in early stage breast cancer.
So, in my case, with all that I had going on 9 positive nodes, 3 types of
aggressive breast cancer, and extensive lympho-vascular invasion, my thoughts
are that I was closer to stage IV than stage IIb (which was the initial
pathological stage reported).
At least my oncologist had the sense to recognize that and am guessing that was
why I was allowed Herceptin out-of-protocol after being rejected for a trial
for it.  I am glad that I had a positive response.  My tumor markers didn't
return until normal until after I had been on the Herceptin and completed 4
taxanes.  I first had 4 AC, then 5 weeks of rads wihtout boost (which I am not
sure was enough--rads was only based on main tumor that had clear margins but
they didn't consider location (upper inner quadrant) or fact that I had high
grade dcis and separate tumor in nipple within dermal lymphatics) .  Then I had
the taxanes---2 Taxol and 2 Taxotere with Herceptin for a year, along with
Arimidex (which I only got because I rejected Tamoxifen), then the Celebrex,
then Doxycycline, the Zometa (had 3 doses for osteoporosis preventin, although
am concerned about possibility of bone and spinal mets), then synthoid (when
thyroid stopped working), and then statin drug (with  sudden high
cholesterol--from Arimidex?).
I still wonder if the supposed hemangioma on my liver, which was never
confirmed, was a liver metastases, especially since I lost 17.5 lbs in about 3
weeks between my diagnosis and initial surgery.  I also wonder if the enlarged
retroperitoneal nodes which were reported not likely to be associated with
breast cancer (they aren't for the most common type--ductal--which 85% have but
are 3rd most common site for lobular which I had--and the rectal bleeding which
began the day before first surgery--out-of-the-blue with no pain or other
symptoms (although I had reported weird change in shape of b.m. 3  mos before
my dx which nobody every addressed) and that bleeding continued until after
first chemo treatments (AC) was completed.  I did have supposed normal
colonoscopy AFTER completion of AC.   However, bleeding again recently
began...w/no discomfort...

Hello Kathie:

I have stage 4 bc with med to the liver.  The reason I am so darn
confused is that both my oncologist in NYC where I was undergoing
treatment and now here in Florida I had two different numbers.  They
said that the reason they were both so different (but had come down from
its original numbers)  is that they utilize two different testings.  I
have to say that I feel great, actually better then I have in years??  I
know this sounds amazing, but it iss totally true!!! <g>  Gosh, I think
I was better off when I was stupid!

Thank you Kathie, your post was very appreciated.