natural girls
Comments
-
I think they are now paying more attention to the idea of tumor load, that the treatments are more effective when there are fewer cancer cells (and the immune system is more effective as well). That is why they are increasingly doing lumpectomies and mastectomies on women who have mets. It used to be that the horse was out of the barn and they would rely on the systemic treatments but there is a growing body of thought that less cancer in the body increases the effectiveness of the treatments. This is why I would be awfully nervous about leaving cancer in the lymph nodes or not knowing if there is any cancer in the lymph nodes. Its basically like arming yourself for a recurrence, allowing another launching pad. I would think in this section in particular you would want to give your immune system the best shot possible. We can never eliminate all cancer cells once we've had cancer, but we can get our individual tumor loads down to the point where our immune system holds them in check. Surgery is the first step in the process.
0 -
This is not a matter of opinion/theory. This is a matterof FACT. Removing cancerous nodes may be worse for survival and more likely to create distant mets. Those who don't want to believe the evidence are discarding facts in favor of unfounded belief.
National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP)
A turning point in this story began in 1960 when Bernard Fisher, then the director of the National
Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Program, began an ambitious study that was to be the first
randomized controlled trial (RCT) investigating the value of the ELND in breast cancer
patients.[15]To the surprise of most, Fisher's study of 1700 patients failed to reveal any
statistically significant survival advantage for patients undergoing ELND. Although the lymph node dissection group experienced fewer recurrences in the treated lymph node basin, this improvement in local control did not translate to a benefit in overall survival. In fact, when these patients did have recurrences, these were more likely to be distant disease. Since Fisher's landmark study, five RCTs evaluating ELND in breast cancer patients have failed to reveal a statistically significant survival advantage for patients treated with ELND.[16]The lack of evidence supporting the value of ELND for breast cancer patients in these five trials raised significant questions regarding the dogmatic but unproven traditional approach to surgical management in patients with cancer.
0 -
Anomdenet-
You could be right but I am not sure that I believe it? I think it is a fact that dairy promotes cancer but I am pretty sure that you don't believe it. I guess it is just what makes the most sense to each individual.
0 -
I don't deal in belief. Please don't speculate on what you think my beliefs are because I only engage in facts.
Feel free to refute my facts if you can find evidence. I would welcome any and all factual refutations.
Once we descend into beliefs we might as well be engaging in fortune telling. That dilutes the quality of this group and drives off the serious members.
0 -
Hey everybody, we are all on the same team here.
I really appreciate what you all have to say. I have really learned something from this debate. We need to hear both sides. And I am really questioning why I was put through a SNB when I had clear, wide margins. I was already freaked out by all the nuclear medicine crap, with the radioactive dye they injected into me. It still makes me shudder. I hope I was able to detox it all out! At least this discussion will enable those who have yet to go through treatments the opportunity to make a more educated decision. It does not seem illogical to remove all these lymph nodes, when our lymphatic system is what filters out all the junk. How do we filter our bodies without lymph nodes? I can also see the point that if there is cancer in them, that the cancer should be removed. The bottom line is that it seems, here again, the business of cancer, does not make a bit of sense.
I feel so bad that I did not trust my instincts. I made an appointment with my primary doctor right after surgery because I was having such fears about the treatment. It is kinda crazy because I was more afraid of the treatment than I was of having cancer. My doctor told me to be a good patient, that my team of doctors were all committed to getting me well, and that I should stop reading on the internet, because they knew best. So like a good girl, I did as I was told. And all the while, a little voice in my head was in panic mode. It took me months to stop beating myself up over the fact that I did not question anything, and went along with it all, except for the arimidex issue. I never felt more at peace until I tossed that script. It was my first big step to taking charge of my own health, and not listening to what doctors were telling me instead of what my own intuition was. So, my point is, this is really vaulable information, and we all need to process it, in our own way.
Thanks to you both, Anom, and FlaLady for the information.
0 -
I just wanted to add one more thing that really made me mad. I had a really tough time with the whole idea of rads. I did it anyway, but was a wreck, every day. I had very little burning, but near the end, my armpit became sore. I did not even realize they were radiating my lymph nodes! My tumor was on the inside of the breast so why did they radiate my clear nodes??? I felt like they were killing my healthy nodes. The whole thing still really ticks me off!
0 -
In spite of reading everything I could get my hands on during my tx, I've never heard of this interesting theory about not doing a node dissection. So I just did a quick internet search, and -- while not putting the theory down in any way -- I would encourage anyone still facing this step of treatment to carefully read the full reports from which some of the quotes above have been taken. In other words, I don't think the selected quotes alone give the full picture. Also, in terms of medical research, the material is dated (1999 - 2005); although, strangely, I haven't yet found anything more recent on the subject. Personally, I think it's interesting, and there well may be something to it in some cases. But, unfortunately, like everything else about bc, we're left to sort it out for ourselves.
But I totally agree that, in many cases, node dissection is far too extensive and the surgeons not nearly skilled enough to ensure the best outcome. And, sadly, so many women don't bother to research their options, and don't have the support and interaction we have here that enables us to educate ourselves and each other.
And speaking of educating ourselves, does anyone else get Science Daily? I get an email notice each week of the health & medical articles, which include many on bc, cancer, and nutrition. In fact, although I haven't read it yet, I just noticed there was an article this week about curcumin:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/ Deanna
0 -
Ladies-This should help on the subject...
1: J Clin Oncol. 2007 Aug 20;25(24):3657-63. Epub 2007 May 7.
Related Articles, Links
Surgical complications associated with sentinel lymph node dissection (SLND) plus axillary lymph node dissection compared with SLND alone in the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Trial Z0011.Lucci A, McCall LM, Beitsch PD, Whitworth PW, Reintgen DS, Blumencranz PW, Leitch AM, Saha S, Hunt KK, Giuliano AE; American College of Surgeons Oncology Group.
Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA. alucci@mdanderson.org
PURPOSE: The American College of Surgeons Oncology Group trial Z0011 was a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial comparing overall survival between patients with positive sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) who did and did not undergo axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). The current study compares complications associated with SLN dissection (SLND) plus ALND, versus SLND alone. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From May 1999 to December 2004, 891 patients were randomly assigned to SLND + ALND (n = 445) or SLND alone (n = 446). Information on wound infection, axillary seroma, paresthesia, brachial plexus injury (BPI), and lymphedema was available for 821 patients. RESULTS: Adverse surgical effects were reported in 70% (278 of 399) of patients after SLND + ALND and 25% (103 of 411) after SLND alone (P
Publication Types:
• Multicenter Study
• Randomized Controlled Trial
• Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
PMID: 17485711 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]0 -
Sorry,I can't paste it for some reason. Here's the link:
0 -
2008: van der Ploeg Iris M C; Kroon Bin B R; Antonini Ninja; Valdés Olmos Renato A; Rutgers Emiel J T; Nieweg Omgo E
Axillary and extra-axillary lymph node recurrences after a tumor-negative sentinel node biopsy for breast cancer using intralesional tracer administration.
Annals of surgical oncology 2008;15(4):1025-31.
BACKGROUND: At our institution, tracer fluids are administered in the primary breast cancer and, in addition to the ones in the axilla, sentinel nodes outside the axilla are rigorously pursued. The objective of the present study of sentinel node-negative breast cancer patients was to determine the lymph node recurrence rates in the axilla and elsewhere, the false-negative rates, and the survival. METHODS: Between January 1999 and November 2005, 1,019 breast cancer patients underwent a sentinel node biopsy. In 748 of them, 755 sentinel node biopsies did not reveal a tumor-positive sentinel node and they did not undergo axillary node dissection. Metastases were revealed in 284 sentinel node biopsies performed in the remaining 271 patients: 247 in the axilla, 20 outside the axilla, and 17 both in the axilla and elsewhere. The median follow-up duration was 46 months. RESULTS: Two of the 748 sentinel node-negative patients developed an axillary lymph node recurrence (0.25%) and two others developed a supraclavicular lymph node recurrence (0.25%). The overall lymph node recurrence rate was 0.5%. The false-negative rates were 1.4% overall, 0.8% for the axilla, and 5.1% for the extra-axillary nodes. After five years, 95.9% of all sentinel node-negative patients were alive and 89.7% were alive without evidence of disease. CONCLUSION: The low recurrence and false-negative rates and promising survival figures show that our lymphatic mapping method with intralesional tracer administration is accurate for the axilla. Outside the axilla, 5.1% of involved sentinel nodes were missed n***does not lead to more mets!makingway... this shows side effects not recurrence rates. This is the main concern for stage III patients or patients with aggressive disease. I agree for early stage disease and low grade bc this does not have alot of value. But I've meet or spoke to over hundred bc ladies....leading factor or mets... lymph involvement and how many nodes positive. Fact not belief is node involvement more advance disease. Again KNOW your disease. Triple Neg 65% recur in the first 2 yrs. If you get a recur. you have maybe five years. What would you do? Would you leave 17 or 18 positive cancer nodes in your body? I've met ladies that had these removed and are disease free now why take the risk? All these studies don't even address triple neg that has only been found and tracked in the last five ot six years. These studies are also address early disease only, NOT advance node involvement. I had a hard time even find one study that showed node involvment. All tracked if mapping was negative and did they have recurrences. Sorry all of us are not blessed with this out come. Read them carefully... most only address node negative and not by receptor or grade the only true indicator of how fast your cells are duplicating and how aggressive your treatment needs to be.
I do believe this procedures is over used and has done harm to many... but not for aggressive disease. With TN we don't of the luxury of non-chemo drugs (hormone or Hercepton) or even a protocol that has shown proven to work for us. We are the left over garbage of the breast cancer community why would you not do everything in your power? It's easy to set back and say what each of us would do until you are faced with advance disease or a disease than there is very little info about how to treat.
I only wish to remind everyone not all breast cancer is the same. If you have aggressive disease you need to be very educated.
Breast Cancer Survival According to Number of Nodes Removed
David N. Krag, MD, FACS and Richard M. Single, PhD
From the College of Medicine (DNK) and Department of Medical Biostatistics (RMS), University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont.
Correspondence: Address correspondence and reprint requests to: David N. Krag, MD, FACS, S. D. Ireland Professor of Surgical Oncology, College of Medicine, University of Vermont, Given Building, Room E309, Burlington, VT 05405; Fax: 802-656-5833; E-mail: mailto:david.krag@uvm.edu
Background: Results from randomized trials indicate a 5.4% survivaladvantage associated with axillary dissection. To gain insighton survival outcomes when less than an axillary dissection isperformed, we performed a retrospective analysis to determinesurvival outcome for node-negative and node-positive breastcancer patients when a variable number of nodes were excised.
Methods: The data analyzed in this paper are from the Surveillance,Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, from which 72,102patients were selected whose breast cancer had been diagnosedin 1988 or later and who were aged 40-79 years at diagnosis,had a single primary lesion, and had 0 to 3 positive lymph nodes.Cases were separated into age groups (40 to 49 and 50 to 79years), and node-negative cases were separated from those withone to three positive nodes.
Results: This analysis indicates that even when all regionallymph nodes are pathologically negative, the number of nodesremoved is associated with survival. In the group of breastcancer patients who had one to three pathologically positivenodes, as with the node-negative group, the higher the numberof nodes removed, the greater the survival. The hazard ratefor death in the node-negative group was roughly 5% less foreach additional five nodes removed. For the node-positive group,the hazard rate for death was between 8% and 9% less for eachadditional five nodes removed.
Conclusions: This retrospective study supports the notion thatremoval of regional nodes, even when such nodes are interpretedas pathologically negative, is important for the long-term survivalof breast cancer patients.
0 -
vivre,
I'm with you about radiation...if you see the research on this you will be disappointed also. Most rearch says only to do on node positive ladies.
Flalady
0 -
Does anyone say no to radiation. I am facing that dilemma now. It does not sound like a very healthy thing to do. I tried chemo but after 3 treatments my body screamed "NO MORE OF THIS CRAP". Then I tried tamoxifen and again my body screamed 'NO MORE OF THIS CRAP'. So now it's time for the rads and I'm frightened!!!!!
0 -
Vivre - Fershure we are all in this together which is why we need the correct information. What is astonishing is how lymph node dissection (even after sentinal node biopsy) even tho the mainstream "bible" THE MANUAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY reports the procedure as ineffective in altering spread of disease. This means mainstream medicine is not practicing evidence-based medicine.
Makingway - you have posted a study that address the complication rate of the different procedures. This is not what I was talking about. My point is, there has NEVER been any study to show that removing nodes, even if cancerous, helps survival.
This information is both old and new. They knew this years ago. And it was revisited by Dr. Parmigiani when he cited lymph node dissection was increasingly irrelevant because the tumor pathology report gives enough info to stage patients.
Newer medications or strategies cannot alter the fundamentals of breast cancer physiology. There is no "alternative physiology." Just because most of us have never heard the facts about removing lymph nodes not helping survival DOES NOT MAKE IT A THEORY. It just means this is one more set of facts we were not told.
0 -
Thank you all.
I don't want to come across stern. When you find facts that are crippling women needlessly, you get very passionate.I've really looked into this. I even came across a surgeon who didn't know this. But he was eager to read about it because he had been removing nodes for 30 years, just assuming it must be the right thing because that's the way everybody else did it.
0 -
Anondemet . . . none of this is FACT, as you can see, there are studies on both sides of the issue. I think it is quite possible that adjuvant treatment can take care of cancer in the lymph nodes and in some women removing the nodes is overtreatment. But I also think it is quite possible that leaving cancer there only sets a higher bar for subsequent treatment. This is why more and more women with mets are having their primaries removed. Of course women who have axillary dissections are most likely to get mets -- our cancer is further advanced.
I think you are the one being doctrinaire here. I believe in the science, like you, but I also know it changes. The science supported the use of a taxol for me and i now read that new studies say it isn't that helpful. There are a lot of moving pieces here. Its possible that node removal is more helpful with certain protocols, we don't know. But the science is not a fixed state. And it is certainly not unreasonable to want to get rid of as much cancer as possible during surgery.
There is also the issue of staging, which makes a huge difference. The treatments for node positive cancer are different than for node negative, and when there are many positive nodes it is different still. You can't know how many nodes are positive unless you look.
0 -
My screen is really wide. Could it be the paste from one of you guys?
I think it was good to get this discussion out there. Just one more thing to think about, but it does worry me because we have managed to stay alive on this tread for so long. I just do not want to lose it. But is is good for us to hear both sides of the story.
And that brings me to your question.seaotter. We had a thread about radiation for early stage cancers. Many of us tried to weigh-in about how we wished we had not done, or refused to do it because the evidence did not support it. Eventually we became so attacked and the thread got so nasty that it was shut down. It was really sad, because I think people got a lot of valuable information. So, I guess, I am just advising you to do the research and follow your gut. I wish I had. I had huge anger attacks daily throughout it and I just could not figure it out, because I am not usually like that. But what is done is done. I did the rads, and then I did a year of detoxing.
0 -
Member of the club,
If you think what I have DOCUMENTED is not fact, please show me actual documentation that removing cancerous nodes improves prognosis.
As for the staging purpose, axillary status is now irrelevant since they can get so much information from the tumor pathology report to stage the patient.
I would appreciate it if you would not characterize my personality. Please rebut my facts if you can. Rebutting my personality has nothing to do with fact-finding in cancer. Your facts should rise or fall on their own merit.
0 -
How does the pathology report stage the patient? It can grade the cancer, it can tell you about the biology of the tumor, but it can't tell how far it has progressed. It would be nice if that had the technology to tell us how many nodes are positive without actually opening them up but as far as I know we aren't there yet.
0 -
anomdenet-
I didn't mean to criticize you personally. I know what it is like to feel passionate about something and try to enlighten people that don't believe you. That is why I mentioned the dairy issue because I read another post by you that I took to mean that you didn't believe the information contained in "The China Study". I feel passionate about that study. That is all that I meant so I apologize if I offended you.
I think that a lot of times they take nodes that aren't necessary. And the docs don't even talk about lymphedema. When I had my last mastectomy I talked to my surgeon about not taking nodes. She is a breast surgeon and I asked her "with all of your experience, looking at nodes all of the time, can't you tell by looking which are cancerous?" She said "No. I am constantly humbled by pathology" so I let her take do the SN. It just seems that if you have positive nodes and you don't remove them, then why bother to remove the breast? Just asking.
I didn't have rads because I had a mx. One of the reasons I chose the max is because I was afraid of rads too. What are the long term affects of rads? I know a person that had rads 25 years ago. The rads were stronger then and maybe not aligned as well but she has had major issues recently that all have to do with the damage caused by the rads.
0 -
I posted trials and you don't want to acknowledge my research I posted trial where it does prove to extend remission? You are repeating one doctor's findings. I'm very passionate also about this also. I fear for ladies who will not receive aggressive treatment who need it. Chemo nor radiation will not be able to get these ladies back into remission. Please show me proof where these treatments will help ladies who have node positive disease that is TN or Her2? Surgery is their only HOPE!
Please also make sure you are reading about the same procedure. Your postings are about node dissection which is very rarely used now days. Sentinel node dissection is the old way of doing this where they took all the nodes under the arm. Than read about Sentinel node mapping...this is where the dye is use and they only take out cancer nodes...if any is found. That is where you are getting your findings on old data that has changed because it was wrong to do it this way and the mapping came about from this research.
0 -
Using National Cancer Data Base information on 547,847 women, Scott-Conner and collaborators at other universities found that surgeons were more likely to forgo axillary node dissection on women with Stage I breast cancer than women with Stage II disease (14.5 percent versus 5.5 percent). The researchers also found that the 10-year relative survival for Stage I women treated with partial mastectomy and axillary node dissection was 85 percent versus 66 percent for comparable women in whom the node removal was omitted.
"We are concerned about the numbers because it really hasn't been proven for breast cancer that you should forgo the axillary node dissection," Scott-Conner said. "Our results were fairly striking. The survival was significantly worse for patients who did not have the dissection.
"If this had been the only study, then I would say, 'Well, we need to get more information.' But there was a similar study from the Rhode Island Tumor Registry. Because it was a smaller group within a single state, they were able to do much more careful analysis of the data. Their results were very similar. I just don't think we have enough information right now to make the leap and say that we can omit doing dissections."
0 -
Kinda off-topic, but seems like a lot of people have trouble pasting links. If you highlight one of the words you typed (by double-clicking on it), you'll see the that one of the buttons in the text box tool bar becomes colored (it's greyed out usually); it looks like a chain link (for hyperlink). If you click that button, another little window pops up where you can paste the link you want to insert. The word you highlighted becomes the link, rather than having to paste the entire thing into your text box.
0 -
Member,
The prognostic factors in tumor grading have become so sensitive and sophisticated that they "trump" any findings in the axilla. Negative nodes may be misleading. Nodes are different than the solid tumor in that they "catch" cells rather than host tumors. So, if you want to make a decision to act on your tumor pathology, there is no reason to use the barbaric staging methods they used 20 years ago.
Baywatcher - I respect whatever path you choose to follow, regardless of our differences. Some people have a visceral reaction to foods and information and going against their fears would probably make them sicker than the diet with the evidence. May your foods be blessed!
Flalady - I'm not ignoring what you post. There were so many confusions that I didn't know where to begin. For example:
- First, I couldn't understand where the actual studies started and your interpretation ended.
- Second, you captured a piece of a study which only went out 46 months.
- Thirdly, another study was addressing triple negative patients.
- Fourth, you keep erroneously saying I'm referring to a single doctor when I referred to the the long-running NSABP and THE MANUAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY chapter on the breast.
- Fifth, you tell me they don't do nodal dissection anymore when in fact, the sentinel node procedure gives the doctor permission to disect the nodes if he doesn't like the looks of the sentinel node.
If you post a long term follow-up study comparing people who had nodes removed compared with those who didn't, all other factors being equal, I will happily and cheerfully respond.
On a personal note, I didn't just discover this information yesterday. I first heard about it in the 1990s on NPR when a doctor from Duke was interviewed. And even since the 90s tumor pathology info has progressed hugely. I have been following the research trail for quite a while. I'm not saying I couldn't have missed something. Please let me know if I have because being factually corrected only makes the information base better.
Anom
0 -
No way does grading trump staging. The most important prognostic factor is how many nodes are positive. Things like grading tell us how tumors that are like the one you have typically behave. Staging tells you how your tumor IS behaving. There are low grade tumors that move. There are women with mets who were grade 1. It isn't common but it happens enough.
Grading is particularly helpful with earlier stage tumors. If you have a tumor that is small and you are node negative, they may want more aggressive treatment if the grade indicates a more aggressive tumor.
If you are node positive, you are most likely a candidate for chemo, and one of the more aggressive protocols, regardless of hormone status and grade. And if you have lots of positive nodes and are er+, you are more likely to have your ovaries removed and be put on an AI as opposed to tamoxifen. You are also more like to have scans and closer monitoring. If you have a lot of positive nodes you are also more likely to have scans before you start treatment, sometimes catching mets that are there from the get-go. Grade can't tell you any of this. Grade is an approximation, staging is based on verified information.
This isn't barbaric. For many of us it is lifesaving. I was grade 2 -- not particularly aggressive or unaggressive. But I had a positive node and was treated more aggressively as a result. Thank God.
I have to add that you started by saying it is documented fact that removing nodes is worthless, or whatever, and now you are picking apart Florida's studies. The point is that it isn't as open and shut as you said it was.
I'm glad they are researching this issue. I hope one day they will be able to determine who should lymph nodes removed, how many, and who should not. Avoiding overtreatment is a good thing. But we aren't there yet and I think its a mistake to be telling women with invasive cancers not to have SNBs.
0 -
Change of topic:
I read someplace that DIM is good for pre-menopausal women only. Is this true? I think it even said that once you reach menopause you have to stop taking the supplement. Wonder if anybody else heard about this?
0 -
FloridaLady- Thank you very much for all the data. I am just trying to gather as much as possible, so I can make a rational decision. I'm not sure which group I would be in as far as staging goes. My tumour is 5.9cm, but I was told it grows in sheets, that's why it took them 10 years to detect it...? Therefore maybe it's not that aggresive. I am ER+, PR+ , HER-2/neu Negative, 0-1+ by IHC, whatever that means. I was also toldby my surgeon that my type of cancer doesn't respond to chemo. I have ILC.
anomdenet-Here is an excerpt of the article you referred to:
Yet, as the tumour grows, eventual
immunosuppression is likely to develop through a variety of tumour-induced
mechanisms.[62] Eventually, the normal lymph node architecture is destroyed
rendering the lymph node immunologically ineffective and a possible source for
further tumour dissemination. At this point, once the tumour has become
biologically active and has obliterated the normal structure and function of the
node, removal would serve to decrease tumour burden and potentially decrease
further tumour-based immunosuppression.[38,63-65]The problem is this;how is one to know when the structure and function has been obliterated???
I would definately opt for not having the procedure, but because my tumour is so large-5.9cm I am really having a hard time deciding what's best for my health. I definately don't want to deal with lyphedema the rest of my life.
I welcome all information on the subject, whether for or against. Otherwise, how can one make a logical decision.
0 -
The Meatrix I
Take the red pill and watch the critically-acclaimed, award-winning first episode of The Meatrix Trilogy.Our heroes Moopheus, Leo, and Chickity return in The Meatrix II: Revolting to expose the dark side of the dairy industry.
The Meatrix II ½ takes us to a processing facility, where we learn how we feed our Fast Food Nation
0 -
Anom ~ I appreciate your history in researching this topic, but based on personal experience, I'm not sure I agree with the characterization that lymph nodes merely catch cells, and that they don't then grow within the node. My 1 positive sentinel node had "extracapsular tumor extension," which means it was starting to grow outside of the node capsule. And it was this fact -- even more than the fact that it was positive -- that influenced some of my tx decisions. Deanna
0 -
makingway,
I so sorry you are in one of the weird groups of bc like me. I know the info about treatment becomes very gray on how to treat. You way want to post under "recently diagnosed" about your disease and see what other can tell you. Your lobular right? If you are I do know a couple of ladies who have had this and it can be aggressive because it likes soft tissue. Means slow to got to mets but harder to treat. The good and the bad.... Your tumor is on the larger side....
Feel free to PM me and I help you with some more research if you would like?
I hope you stay with us here and do CAM as you decide what to do and throught treatment.
Best wishes you find your way in your journey.
Flalady
Neuropathy is bad today and typing is really hard for me:(
0 -
Flalady-thanks for the info. I do appreciate all the advice you can give me. I'm sorry you are suffering. I hope you will find some relief.
Yes, I have infiltrating (invasive) lobular carcinoma.
I would be so bummed if I had my nodes removed, only to get a metastasis later. I would be all for it if I knew it wasn't going to metastasis. I kind of have a feeling it already has. About 3 years ago I had breakdown emotionally. Everything that could possibly go wrong, did. A result of that was a feeling that something was wrong with my eye. It felt like I might imagine a mild stroke would. My vision in my right eye changed, it wasn't as good. Later the side of my neck was included. It feels like a mild pinched nerve.
Because of my medical coverage I didn't get to see a doctor until recently. He said I had injured my retina. He also wanted to put me in a research trial study for 'dry eye'.That was his gig. I didn't do anything to injure my eye, that I can recall. The only thing I can conclude is that the cancer has got to it. I didn't do the study.
I don't know what CAM is, but i will try and figure that out.
Take Care
0
