LCIS with chemo?

kar0927----LCIS is an in-situ bc, stage 0; it IS bc, it is just a non-invasive type. It does NOT require chemo or rads. If they are recommending chemo or rads, then she may have an invasive component found in there also, which would then make her at least stage 1. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon to find invasive bc and LCIS together.( Actually, it is very uncommon to find LCIS by itself--my onc and bs both said I was very unusual, "1 in a hundred"). So if she has an invasive bc, her treatment would be directed at that, not the LCIS.

Anne

There are definitely two camps on the "is LCIS cancer?" question.  There are also two camps on the "is DCIS cancer?" question.  But one thing that is pretty much agreed is that DCIS always needs to be removed from the breast, whereas the removal of LCIS is usually considered optional.  The other thing that is always agreed is that chemo is not required for either LCIS or DCIS. 

kar0927, I'd suggest that you ask for a copy of your grandmother's pathology report, if you don't already have one.  If chemo is being considered, then as Anne said, it's almost certain that an invasive component was found in your grandmother's pathology, in addition to the LCIS.

Here's a website that explains LCIS and DCIS treatment options.  It does state that LCIS is not cancer - I hope that doesn't offend anyone here - but I included this site because it's current (2008), succinct and easy to understand, and hopefully provides kar0927 with information that she can use to perhaps question and get clarity on her grandmother's diagnosis and treatment plan.

Edited to Add:  I just reread this post and realized that I forgot to include the link to the website that I mentioned.  Sorry about that.  Here it is:  http://www.center4research.org/wmnshlth/2006/dcis10-06.html

I'm sorry you are going through this.  Best wishes to you and your grandmother. 

There is controversy about almost EVERY aspect of LCIS.

 This includes the what it should be called (some prefer calling it lobular neoplasia and grouping it with ALH), what category it should be put into (most oncologists consider that it is NOT cancer, but some do), how it should be best treated, what is its incidence, what risk does it pose to a woman with or without a bad family history or other risk factors, what cellular characteristics are typical of LCIS (in other words, how a pathologist should define LCIS), how many types of LCIS are there, do different types of LCIS make any clinical difference, etc.

The more recent thought is that *many* people now feel that in some *small, but unknown number* of persons, LCIS may, in some small number of cases, be an actual precursor for cancer.

LCIS (and nothing worse) is strange, because even *if* you have LCIS in one small spot in one breast, it puts not only that entire breast, but also the other breast, at risk of breast cancer.  There is a lot we don't understand about LCIS. 

It may or may not be a whole different ballpark if you have LCIS and something worse (such as invasive breast cancer.)

As Bessie said, I have never seen anyone suggest LCIS and nothing worse should be treated with systemic chemo.  I have heard Dr. Susan Love suggest in the future, perhaps some people may be able to be treated with intraductal chemotherapy, for more localized results, but this has certainly not been established.  There, of course, is the problem of getting any proposed chemo far enough into the lobules if you inject it into the ducts. There is also the big problem of trying to find out which lobules are connected with which ducts. As far as I know, this is still at the speculative stage, at best.

As Bessie said, it would be very informative to get a copy of the pathology report. 

im so confused . . . (and what does 'bumping' mean?).  i had both breast removed due to lobular 'cancer.'  now, are ya'll saying it ISN'T cancer?  did i have my breasts removed (and all the hell that goes with it) for nothing?    also, the doctor signed me up for taxol . . . i told her 'no thank you' and she 'fired' me.  oh well -- then the other day, i read that taxol is not recommended for lobular!  what's with this?  she was out for the money???  it's been five years and other than i have a surgical 'MESS' on my chest (i came here to find out about cadaver skin for breast reconstruction), i have had no cancer signs.  can someone explain the 'lobular' issue in layman's terms?  i knew i shouldn't have had both removed, but they scare you to death!!

Hi, Sue. First off, "bump" is a way to get a topic up to the top of the active conversations list by quickly posting a new reply to the thread. This week the site was hit by spammers who were posting multiple, offensive posts that had nothing to do with breast cancer, and community members were "bumping" legitimate posts up so that the spammer's posts wouldn't show on the active conversations list.

Now, regarding your bilat mast and chemo--if you had invasive lobular cancer (ILC), then yes, you had cancer. If you had LCIS, which is lobular carcinoma in situ, then you had abormal cells that are a marker for developing possible invasive cancer (ILC or IDC) in the future. You must have had invasive lobular--there's no way you'd be offered chemo otherwise.

Taxol is generally offered when there are positive lymph nodes or grade 3 cancer, as it is a strong chemo. I was offered it for my lobular cancer, but I opted for AC with 5-Fu instead. The debate about Taxol isn't so much about lobular specifically, but whether it's warranted for node-negative patients. There is a debate about chemo for lobular cancer in general, but that mainly applies to the lobular tumors that are grade 1, as grade 1 tumors divide more slowly than grade 2 or 3, and thus don't resond to chemo as well. Also, lobular tends to be hormone positive, and therefore respond better (in theory) to hormone therapies like Tamoxifen or Arimidex.