> I just found out tonight that Dr. Smiley wants to see Deborah again
> this month because her markers are on the rise after being stable for
> more than two years.
>I don't even know what 'markers' are anyway - but I'm with you both.
Some cancers secrete proteins that can be measured in one's blood -
that's what we refer to as tumor markers. There are a couple of tests
that can be used to measure them - just like the CEA test they use for
prostate cancer, the CA15-3 and CA27.29 tests can be used to measure
tumor activity in Stage IV breast cancer survivors.
The tests vary widely from person to person - it's not the number but
the trend that's important. I've known people who were reasonably
healthy and happy with markers over 1000 and have known people who've
passed away with numbers under 100. Normally insurance companies in
the Colonies won't pay for tumor marker tests for breast cancer unless
there's some evidence of metastatic disease.
A person who's never had breast cancer will have numbers between 0 and
30 - as I mentioned last night Deborah's markers have moved up a bit.
The 27 she was at was in the normal range - high normal, but normal
nonetheless. Not all people can use the tests as a reliable indicator
of tumor activity but Deborah's have been reliable in the past. The
39 she got ten days ago is exactly where she was post-mastectomy but
as of three months ago her lungs were completely clear - that's when
we did the happy dance. The highest her CA 15-3 has *ever* been is
42. That's when we got dropped from the AC + Taxotere trial for
disease progression.
Deborah got caught being a bit disingenuous - which spawned a
conversation about her being my partner, not my mother but I can
understand why she didn't want me to worry. When she returned from
her checkup ten days ago she said everything was fine but accidentally
let slip last night that Dr. Smiley had scheduled an appointment for
Christmas Eve. Since she had been going in for blood work every other
month I asked why Dr. Smiley wanted to see her two months in a row and
the cat was out of the bag.
Things look a lot better today - we're either gonna see a trend and
switch treatments or not. There's nothing I can do about it between
now and the holidays so I think enjoying the holidays is where I want
to be. If we get called back into the fight it'll keep until after
the first of the year, I think.
>I read that as nineteen years ago and laughed.
>
>But nineteen days is still very good, the next eighteen years eleven and a
>half months are the worst. After that it will be easy.
Gee, thanks, Mary :)
Actually things are going pretty well on that front. I feel good and
I'm happy to be a nonsmoker aver 30 years :)
>Positive thoughts and love in abundance ...
Thank you - and the same to you and everyone else here.

Signature
allan
spammers can reach me at abuse@localhost
humans can reach me at wizard at pointbeing dot com
bartalo@webtv.net - 06 Dec 2003 14:55 GMT
>Some cancers secrete proteins that can be
> measured in one's blood - that's what we refer
> to as tumor markers.
Thanks for the additional info on what tumor markers are, Allan. Like
the other poster, I had no idea what they were and so far have not been
tested for "markers". When do they do this? Is it after I finish my
radiation treatments?
Bea
allan grossman - 06 Dec 2003 17:21 GMT
>Thanks for the additional info on what tumor markers are, Allan. Like
>the other poster, I had no idea what they were and so far have not been
>tested for "markers". When do they do this? Is it after I finish my
>radiation treatments?
Bea, they probably won't test you unless they have evidence the cancer
has spread to some other part of your body. With Stage 2 disease most
insurance companies won't pay for the test and it really doesn't tell
you anything unless there's tumor tissue left in your body to monitor.
The test is also not 100% reliable - it's the trend that's important,
not the absolute number. Not getting offered this test is a good
thing, Bea ;-)
*If* a breast tumor secretes certain proteins *and* if they have
evidence of metastatic disease *and* if the test has proven reliable
for that person they track tumor markers so they can tell whether
treatment is effective - once it's no longer effective they switch you
to something else. Most people don't have a need for tumor marker
testing.
With Deborah, we got into a clinical trial of one kind of chemotherapy
- once her CA15-3 started rising we were dropped from that trial and
switched to another kind of chemotherapy + Herceptin and Tamoxifen.
She finished Herceptin two years ago and has been stable on Tamoxifen
alone since then.
Her next test is Christmas Eve and we'll have the results New Years'
Eve. At that point we'll decide whether to stay on Tamoxifen or
switch to another antihormonal - probably Armidex.

Signature
allan
spammers can reach me at abuse@localhost
humans can reach me at wizard at pointbeing dot com
Kaye301 - 06 Dec 2003 18:16 GMT
Allan wrote: << With Stage 2 disease most
insurance companies won't pay for the test and it really doesn't tell
you anything unless there's tumor tissue left in your body to monitor.>>
I just looked at one of my path reports. I had both the CEA and CA 27.29.
Under the results of the latter, it states " Test Method: Advia Centaur BR
Chemiluminescence assay manufactured by Bayer Corporation" "The test is
intended for use as an aid in monitoring patients previously treated for stage
II or stage III breast cancer. Serial testing for CA 27.29 antigen should be
used in confunction with other clinical methods for the early detection of
recurrence. In house precision studies indicate that CA 27.29 values below 15
U/mL demonstrate a coefficient of variation >20%."
allan grossman - 07 Dec 2003 04:25 GMT
>I just looked at one of my path reports. I had both the CEA and CA 27.29.
>Under the results of the latter, it states " Test Method: Advia Centaur BR
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>recurrence. In house precision studies indicate that CA 27.29 values below 15
>U/mL demonstrate a coefficient of variation >20%."
Hmmm. I stand corrected.
Thanks for the info, Kaye :)

Signature
allan
spammers can reach me at abuse@localhost
humans can reach me at wizard at pointbeing dot com
A. P. Thorsen - 08 Dec 2003 14:19 GMT
> Her next test is Christmas Eve and we'll have the results New Years'
> Eve.
. . . and so I'll wish both of you a very, very happy New Years', in
advance. I'm sorry the stress of waiting for test results has been
added to an already stressful season.
Beaming best wishes to both of you as hard as I can --
Ann T.
Remove 'dontsendspam' from address to reply by e-mail
allan grossman - 09 Dec 2003 00:16 GMT
>. . . and so I'll wish both of you a very, very happy New Years', in
>advance. I'm sorry the stress of waiting for test results has been
>added to an already stressful season.
>
>Beaming best wishes to both of you as hard as I can --
Thank you, Ann - and everyone.

Signature
allan
spammers can reach me at abuse@localhost
humans can reach me at wizard at pointbeing dot com
Mary Fisher - 06 Dec 2003 15:14 GMT
<snip words on markers>
Thank you for that, I think I understand it now.
For a while anyway :-)
> Things look a lot better today - we're either gonna see a trend and
> switch treatments or not. There's nothing I can do about it between
> now and the holidays so I think enjoying the holidays is where I want
> to be.
That's the best way to live every day. Worrying in advance about something
which MIGHT happen is as pointless as rejoicing in advance that something
good might happen.
> If we get called back into the fight it'll keep until after
> the first of the year, I think.
Well, keep us in touch whatever the results.
> >I read that as nineteen years ago and laughed.
> >
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Actually things are going pretty well on that front. I feel good and
> I'm happy to be a nonsmoker aver 30 years :)
I'm very happy about that - as one myself. Oh the foolishness of youth ...
Keep it up. I'll be thinking of you on that front too.
Hugs to both,
Mary
Barb - 06 Dec 2003 21:24 GMT
> That's the best way to live every day. Worrying in advance about something
> which MIGHT happen is as pointless as rejoicing in advance that something
> good might happen.
Hi Mary,
It did me good to read your post today. I'm fretting about a daughter who
is recently divorced, has lost her voice (for the past 6 weeks) and is
trying to maintain a job while voiceless. To top it off, she has asthmatic
bronchitis (not related to the voice thing) and her boyfriend just dumped
her. While she has reason to be "down", I'm worried that she will become
clinically depressed, as she was post partum. I know in my head that the
worrying thing is a total waste of emotion and energy, but it sure can be a
blinger to "turn off". Your reminder came at a good time. Hope you are
keeping well.
Barb
Mary Fisher - 06 Dec 2003 21:26 GMT
> Hi Mary,
> It did me good to read your post today. I'm fretting about a daughter who
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> keeping well.
> Barb
I hope I am. Have a clinic appointment on Monday, good news won't be
reported - I'll be too busy rejoicing :-)!
Mary
Kaye301 - 07 Dec 2003 00:43 GMT
<< I know in my head that the
worrying thing is a total waste of emotion and energy, but it sure can be a
blinger to "turn off". >>
Barb, sorry to hear of the added worries you are having at this time. No fun
:-( Do hope situation improves soon. Take care...{{{Hugs}}}