ER/PR+, HER2+, one lymphnode involved- 25 years old

Options
KelliF
KelliF Member Posts: 2
edited June 2014 in Stage I Breast Cancer

Hello,

I was diagnosed last summer (right when I started planning my wedding) with Stage II BC in my left breast. I had a ultrasound on my  lymphnodes and one of them looked fishy to the tech. So they did a biopsy and it came back positive. According to the MRI they took, it barely looked infected, and they couldn't see any other ones infected either. So I'm hoping it was just one node involved.

I did 6 rounds of chemo (TCH) and now I am getting ready for a bilateral mastectomy with immediate reconstruction, though this decision did not come easy. Having to be on Herceptin for a year, and the left breast was infected, I was worried about radiation on the left side with my heart. I was told to be my own health advocate and demanded the doctors to tell me if radiation was really the best choice for me, or was it because I was young and they wanted to throw anything at me. I am an active person, and didn't want to drop on the basketball court with a heart attack at age 30 because the radiation and herceptin messed up my heart. My team said they were comfortable not doing radiation if I really only had one node involved. But then they said that they aren't really worried about it coming back in my nodes, but other places in my body...so why would I get radiation then?? I feel so confused. I asked to sit down with them to explain it to me, but I walk out more confused than I was before...Any suggestions?

Comments

  • TenderIsOurMight
    TenderIsOurMight Member Posts: 4,493
    edited January 2010

    Hello Kellif,

    Breast cancer is a horrible diagnosis at any age, but especially when young. I'm sorry for your diagnosis. Your questions prompted some of my past actions, so I thought I'd try to answer at least one.

    Regarding the radiation for one positive node, there has been no clinical trial done in a random fashion (you get it, you don't) in the 1 to 3 node group of great enough size to reach what is called statistical significance. Hence no one knows whether receiving radiation helps you survive longer when 1 to 3 positive nodes are present with cancer.

    However, analysis done on merging data from many of the look back trials on women who received radiation in 1 to 3 positive nodes, suggests a trend (a line towards, a mathematical likelihood) towards greater likelihood of survival when radiation is given. I've posted on this in the past, so if you wish you could use the search feature and type in 1to 3 nodes, radiation. Also, at bc.orgs home site, look under radiation and it summarizes this. Several major cancer centers now recommend radiation to the 1 to 3 node group, where as others review it as an option wo their recommendation per se. 

    Radiation has been shown to reduce loco-regional recurrence on the side of the breast cancer by about a third. As to absolute benefit from radiation in preventing distance recurrence, I have seen estimates of percentages from 1 to 2 % up to 6%. The mechanism towards survival trend has been suggest to be one of sterilizing by radiation the chest area of still viable cancer cells, as well as the nodes, so that these viable cells don't harbor as a source of distant seeding through their gaining access to the blood or lymphatic vessels and circulating throughout the body and brain. 

    Of late, Dr. Larry Norton has spoken on re-seeding effect of circulating breast cancer cells, as well as seed and soil. Effort to reduce the number of circulating cells in a breast cancer patient may reduce the number of bc cells which travel back to the area originally afflicted and elsewhere. The "soil" refers to the components which make up the background in which the circulating cells may embed, as well as hormones and more which "call" amenable cells to them like a Siren. How radiation changes the original breast tumor site soil will undoubtedly be studied in years hence.

    I did have postmastectomy radiation for one node after I read and contemplated many hours over the matter, so perhaps I am too biased. I still wanted to try to explain some of the thought behind this.

    Without over-reaching, I am wondering if lumpectomy with radiation was offered to you as an alternative to bilateral mastectomy. Do you have a strong family history or possibly carry the BRCA genes? Obviously our tension is very high with our diagnosis, and some prefer to proceed to full surgery. Support your way what ever your decision, and good speed and recovery to you.

    Best,

    Tender

  • orange1
    orange1 Member Posts: 930
    edited January 2010

    Hi Kelli -

    In case this helps your decision...since you had TCH, it is very likely that Herceptin has not increased your risk of heart damage.  Herceptin can be damaging when given with the other protocol for Her2+ breast cancer (AC TH), but when given as part of TCH, is not likely to be damaging.

    The major study that looked at this issue is BCIRG-006.  This study compared three chemo regiments -  AC T (no Herceptin), AC TH and TCH.  Here are the numbers for heart damage after a median time of over 5 years (65 months):

    For cardiac related death: 0 for all treatment protocols (AC T, AC TH and TCH)

    Grade 3/4 left ventricular function (Grade 3/4 CHF = significant heart damage)

    AC T - 7 cases of grade 3 or 4 CHF out of 1050 women treated

    AC TH - 21 cases of grade 3 or 4 CHF out of 1068 women treated

    TCH - 4 cases of grade 3 or 4 CHF out of 1056 women treated

    Another measure of heat damage is a decline in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).  They probably measured this when you started therapy with MUGA scan or echocardiogram.  As a group, women that received TCH were back to the pre-treatment LVEF by 4 years post treatment (Most were close to pretreatment level by 12 months post treatment).  The two other groups (AC T and AC TH) had a very slight decrease in LVEF at 4 years.

    Please be aware that LVEF can vary significantly from one test to the next - so if you've had a couple measurements and they are not the same - it doesn't necessarily mean damage.  Once when I was very dehydrated mine went form 69 to 55, but my heart was fine.  It went back up.

    Good luck with your decision.

Categories