Aug 28, 2010 07:58PM MarieKelly wrote:
I didn't have a pure tubular cancer which, as you stated, is rare. I had invasive ductal (IDC) with tubular features. To be considered a pure tubular cancer, the tumor has to demonstrate a high percentage of tubular features - something like 75% -100% depending on the pathology lab doing the testing. IDC with tubular features is also usually a low grade/grade 1 tumor but exhibiting less than the 75-100% tubular features that's required of a pure tubular cancer.
But I do understand why you would wonder if so much treatment is necessary for that type of breast cancer. You obviously have a fairly good understanding of the type of cancer you have or else you wouldn't even be pondering that type of question. Personally, I don't think it's necessary but current standards of care don't really take the very low risks associated with tubular breast cancer into consideration when making treatment recommendations.
Perhaps when someone is very young it makes a bit more sense to be more aggressive with treatment of a very low risk breast cancer, but I had just turned 49 when diagnosed and was already in menopause. I didn't allow any treatment other than a wide excision lumpectomy and SNB (just one node removed) and honestly didn't have much, if any, reservations about doing so once I got over the initial shock of diagnosis and could think clearly. But I wouldn't have hesitated, even for a New York second, had mine been a pure tubular. I feel very fortunate that my invasive BC was just a small, low grade IDC with tubular features, but I would have been even more pleased if it had been a pure tubular like yours.