new lung mass 13 years after triple negative breast cancer

fauna13

Hello all,

I am posting here as I just learned that my mother has a new 5cm lung mass (report says likely malignant, with a 9 mm node) 13 years after triple negative breast cancer treatment. We do not know yet whether this is a new cancer or a metastasized breast cancer. I am posting now, rather than later, because I am seeking guidance about where she should go for treatment, what process she should request/expect for best care, and when would be the best time for a 2nd opinion.

I am hoping to hear input on the following:

1) in your experience should she be satisfied with a regional cancer center that says it is one of the best in the nation (but I cannot find any evidence of this on the generically available top cancer center lists) or should we aim for an NCCN comprehensive cancer care center? She is 1 hour from Hopkins. The regional cancer center is linked to one of the better hospitals in the nation, but I am not sure that means the cancer center itself is good. I have tried to search rankings and stats for metastatic breast cancer treatment (and of course lung cancer treatment) but cannot find any actual outcome statistics. I am wondering about this in regards not only to better final outcomes but also speed with which they treat, pain management, better treatment plans, access to alternative/new approaches, etc.

2) is there any advantage to starting with the better cancer center now, before the biopsy, so they can follow and control the entire process from the start, or is there no disadvantage to doing the biopsy/pathology and initial full body testing where we are? By the way, I am not against saying where we are if that is helpful, I just didn't know if it was against the posting rules. I have no medical background but it seems to me that a biopsy can glean less or more info based on approach, skill, etc. I am not sure. I am also thinking that a comprehensive center would approach her case from a wholistic perspective whereas currently she is not under anyone's care. She is simply an individual who will meet with a thoracic surgeon who will do a biopsy, then she will be routed to a medical oncologist and they will present their thoughts. I imagine (but again, am not sure) that it would be best to start from a group decision regarding the big picture where the surgeon, med onc, etc discuss what biopsy approach, testing etc would be best. If you could please clarify for me how this usually works and how this should work (in a best care setting) I would greatly appreciate it.

Thank you again for this forum and your thoughts.

star2017

I would go to Hopkins first. Once you have a diagnosis and treatment plan you can perhaps ask them for recommendations for someone closer.

What’s the other center

KBeee

I agree with calling Hopkins now to get the ball rolling in regards to getting another opinion. That does not mean you need to do all care there, but another set of eyes and advice is helpful to guide treatment.

fauna13

The other center is Hillman in Pittsburgh

wallycat

Did your mom have radiation treatment for the breast cancer? Some women do develop a secondary lung cancer from previous treatment, but not considered mets.

Sending good thoughts that this is not cancer. I would also pick Hopkins if I had the chance. Best to you both.

fauna13

She did have radiation. Thank you for your responses on Hopkins. Any information from your previous experiences as to how things work with a 2nd opinion at a major cancer center? Are you funneled to the right people as a result of your initial call or do you have to fight to get to the best person? In other words, once you get into a place like Hopkins, should you assume you've got the best care, or should you still try to pick the best surgeon, med onc, etc., as far as you are able based on your research and so forth?

Thank you.

KBeee

I would initially just get in there, but if surgery is needed, I'd research the surgeon.