Questions about radiation in early stage IDC

LtotheK · September 2010

Hello, everyone,

I'm finishing chemo next week, and am on to radiation. It's come to my attention that studies show radiation doesn't affect overall survival statistics. I'm a 39 yr old, grade 3, stage 1, IDC, ER+ patient.

Here are my questions: if my doctor is telling me that radiation will lower my chance of local recurrence by more than 20%, can I then assume I have a 20% higher chance of dying of something related to radiation illness (thus the cancellation of overall survival benefit)? My doctor indicated they were careful about radiating only the necessary area.

Could someone point me to some studies? I am not able in google searches to find studies assessing local recurrence vs. overall survival with radiation.

Thank you so much in advance. I want to be armed with the right questions for my oncologist next week.

Member_of_the_Club · September 2010

There is no 20% increase in dying from anything due to radiation. You don't balance the decrease in local recurrence against an increase in dying, you just look at it in isolation as a decrease in local recurrence. There are risks to radiation but they are very, very remote, especially now that they've become much more targeted with the radiation. You should discuss all of this with your radiation oncologist, who should be able to give you very specific information about the risks and benefits in your case. With radiation in particular, general information that you find on the internet won't be that useful because a lot depends on the specifics of your tumor. I do think radiation is a very important tool if you've had a lumpectomy. I know a woman who chose not to do radiation and eventually developed mets. While they say it only prevents a local recurrence, you really don't want any more cancer in your body.

These boards have become very contentious lately and I know someone will probably post about heart disease as a result of radiation, so I should point out in advance that the risk of heart disease is only if you have a left breast, upper inner tumor and that even in those cases they've become much better about targeting the beam in order to avoid the heart (in the old days this was not the case).

The only other thing to watch for is that your skin will become much more sensitive afterwards to sun damage so if the area is exposed you should wear sun screen.

Congrats! The worst is over for you. Radiation is easier than chemo. 50% of women get fatigue with radiation and the best way to prevent that is exercise. If you can walk everyday, that will help a lot.

LtotheK · September 2010

Thank you so much, Member. What I did find, though I realize I have a lot more to learn, is that the studies showing 20% damage from radiation are generally culled from 20 years of research. Radiation has changed.

Unfortunately, my tumor is in the left breast, exactly where you describe. There are few truisms in the world of BC, and especially in my "borderline" case: my ability to be 100% comfortable with treatment choices pends research that really isn't there yet.

I don't mind the contention. What it is forcing me to do is measure twice, cut once.

Thank you so much for your advice on this!

LtotheK · September 2010

Here's where my brain just can't figure things out.

From a study published on this site http://www.breastcancer.org/treatment/radiation/new_research/20100521b.jsp:

The 10-year probability of freedom from mastectomy was 96% with tamoxifen alone and 98% with tamoxifen plus radiation therapy. Breast cancer-specific and overall survival at 10 years were 98% and 63%, respectively for the tamoxifen arm versus 96% and 61% for the radiation therapy group. (Population is 70+)

Are they suggesting that 37% of women are DEAD at the 10 year mark? How then are they measuring 98% breast cancer free, in corpses? I think this is the root of my lack of understanding.

Here's another one: http://www.breastcancer.org/treatment/radiation/new_research/20060217a.jsp

"There was no difference in overall survival in either trial between women who had radiation treatment and women who did not.

Conclusions: The researchers concluded that radiation therapy to the whole breast can help reduce the risk of recurrence in women with small hormone- receptor-positive breast cancers, even if they receive hormonal therapy after lumpectomy."

What am I not understanding? What's the point of recurrence-free if overall survival is exactly the same?

Member_of_the_Club · September 2010

OK, the key to the first stat is all of the women were over the age of 70. So that latter stat saying 37% were dead at the 10 year mark was because they were at least 80 years old by that time, most likely older. I don't know the general figures for who gets to live to be 85, I know both my parents were dead by then and neither had breast cancer. So I think you have to ignore that stat as having no application to you. The point of the first figure is that only 2% in this group died of breast cancer.

Radiation is only a local treatment. Since it doesn't kill breast cancer cells that have metastasized, which are the ones that cause death, it shouldn't affect survival. However, even if it doesn't show up in the stats I think it must aid long term survival by preventing a local recurrence that would possibly become mets. This is why there is a very minute death rate associated with DCIS, even though DCIS itself can never metastasize. The risk is that it recurs locally and that local recurrence metastasizes.

I do find this all confusing as well. However, I can tell you from the perspective of being 6 years out that I'm very glad I had the lumpectomy (and rads) and not a mastectomy. A mastectomy is major surgery and while sometimes necessary brings complications of its own.

I expect your radiation onc will talk you through all of this in a more accessible way.

LtotheK · September 2010

Thank you! I have a few more questions I'll ask my radiation oncologist, and I'll share them here. Sharing has been my way of thanking this group for their precious time.

I didn't want a mastectomy. I work with my hands and arms for a living, and knew that my career would be greatly hindered by going the mastectomy route. This is where the nuance is all the difference: there is no point to 40+ years of long-term survival for me if I can't live my passion. I do sincerely believe in quality over quantity.

mollyann · September 2010

Radiotherapy is just a local treatment. The only rationale for rads is that a local recurrence would be "distressing." As far as the heart goes, the damage is statistically more if you ALSO have one of the cardiotoxic chemo drugs. So you need to factor that into your decision-making. The combination of radiation and chemo makes it a trickier decision as far as how many "hits" your heart can take before it weakens as you get older. There are some studies that follow radiation patients out 20 years.

I see you've discovered that even our host, breastcancer.org, found no improved survival with radiation with lumpectomy.

*edited for typo

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007 Mar 7;99(5):365-75.

Long-term risk of cardiovascular disease in 10-year survivors of breast cancer.

Hooning MJ, Botma A, Aleman BM, Baaijens MH, Bartelink H, Klijn JG, Taylor CW, van Leeuwen FE.

Department of Epidemiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy for breast cancer as delivered in the 1970s has been associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease, but recent studies of associations with modern regimens have been inconclusive. Few data on long-term cardiovascular disease risk according to specific radiation fields are available, and interaction with known cardiovascular risk factors has not been examined.

METHODS: We studied treatment-specific incidence of cardiovascular disease in 4414 10-year survivors of breast cancer who were treated from 1970 through 1986. Risk of cardiovascular disease in these patients was compared with general population rates and evaluated in Cox proportional hazards regression models. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 18 years, 942 cardiovascular events were observed (standardized incidence ratio = 1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.22 to 1.38; corresponding to 62.9 excess cases per 10,000 patient-years). Breast irradiation only was not associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease. However, radiotherapy to either the left or right side of the internal mammary chain was associated with increased cardiovascular disease risk for the treatment period 1970-1979 (for myocardial infarction, hazard ratio [HR] = 2.55, 95% CI = 1.55 to 4.19; P<.001; for congestive heart failure, HR = 1.72, 95% CI = 1.22 to 2.41; P = .002) compared with no radiotherapy. Among patients who received internal mammary chain radiotherapy after 1979, risk of myocardial infarction declined over time toward unity, whereas the risks of congestive heart failure (HR = 2.66, 95% CI = 1.27 to 5.61; P = .01) and valvular dysfunction (HR = 3.17, 95% CI = 1.90 to 5.29; P<.001) remained increased. Patients who underwent radiotherapy plus adjuvant chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil) after 1979 had a higher risk of congestive heart failure than patients who were treated with radiotherapy only (HR = 1.85, 95% CI = 1.25 to 2.73; P = .002). Smoking and radiotherapy together were associated with a more than additive effect on risk of myocardial infarction (HR = 3.04, 95% CI = 2.03 to 4.55; P for departure from additivity = .039).

CONCLUSIONS: Radiotherapy as administered from the 1980s onward is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Irradiated breast cancer patients should be advised to refrain from smoking to reduce their risk for cardiovascular disease.

Member_of_the_Club · September 2010

PP is well aware of the risk of cardiovascular disease. "Distressing" is not the word I would use to describe leaving cancer cells behind in your body. More like "dangerous." The alternative is a mastectomy, which is far more invasive. When someone who has had a lumpectomy has a local recurrence, the treatment is mastectomy. So if a woman only does a lumpectomy, with no rads, she is creating a large chance of having future, major surgery. There was a time when feminists and breast cancer advocates had to push their (mostly male) doctors hard to preserve their breasts, which were seen as expendable by the medical establishment. The fact that we have this option of lumpectomy plus radiation is a huge step forward.

LtotheK · September 2010

Am I right in thinking each local recurrence has the capacity to spread to lymph nodes, or have lymphovascular invasion, thus becoming a later stage than where you started? I don't know for sure.

I'm still completely confused about local recurrence vs. overall survival if what I suggest above is true.

I did confirm with my nurse that I will be bringing posts here, as well as the studies I find to discuss this matter.

Of course, there's the other niggly detail, and that is "survival" also groups, if I understand correctly, those alive, as well as those battling the disease again. Personally, I just can't go there right now, that is much too discouraging. It occurred to me my aunt's friend who went all holistic and is now battling the disease after five years again is showing up in my "survival" stats as well.

In regards to all these treatments, I'm trying to consider what is essential vs. a choice, because I want desperately to go as holistic as possible. If I walked away from all treatments other than lumpectomy, I know there is a good chance I'm cancer-free. I also know that the surgery itself, and that goes for mastectomy as well, can encourage the cancer cells to go viral. For that matter, the biopsy has been suggested to do same, and none of us gets away without that, regardless of treatment choice.

I will go through this again with Tamoxifen with each step in this journey, and it may very well be that I finally say "no" at some point. I do essentially think these treatments are primitive at best. Talk about women and advocacy: how about lymphedema. I guess no one ever considered a woman might want to raise her hand again.

mollyann · September 2010

Actually, Member, the word "distressing," was the word used in the medical literature for a local recurrence. Radiation has little effect on local recurrence anyway. Maybe 10 to 15 women out of 100 over the following five years will be be spared local recurrence after radiation.

Vivre has looked into this more and regrets having radiation because she only learned about the small benefit after her treatment.

Also, Member, with all due respect, you are incorrect about mastectomy being automatic if a woman recurs. A woman can choose whatever she wants. That's the real feminist way! Wink

Maybe automatic mastectomy is what you have heard or that may be customary. Some other countries prefer to do a second lumpectomy rather than to expose the woman to radiation because it is toxic there is no survival benefit anyway.

mollyann · September 2010

MHP,

You ask a good question as to what causes mets to the nodes. Nobody knows for sure. There is a lot of guessing passed off as fact.

There have been women with huge tumors that have been there 15 years with no nodal involvement and women with teeny tumors with nodal involvement. Maybe the new research on the actual cell biology will give us better prognostic factors.

painterly · September 2010

Hi Ladies,

If only 10% - 15% women benefit from radiation, why is it standard care after lumpectomy? The benefit seems so little.

Glenis

LuvRVing · September 2010

It's really similar to chemo. For some people, the benefit is no more than 5%, yet they choose to do it regardless. For me, it seems to make more sense to do rads when you KNOW there was cancer in the vicinity. Many women choose to do chemo even though there is no node involvement and the benefits from anti-hormone therapy are statistically better. It's a complicated issue.

Michelle

painterly · September 2010

Wow, to go through chemo for a mere 5% (for some people) is mind boggling, I mean the side effects, some of which are permanent, are terrible. I was given about 80% benefit because of an isolated tumour cell (like one!). My node was tested a few times, but I went for chemo because 80% was a good benefit.

My radiologist never mentioned benefit %'s to me at all. In fact, she had the opportunity to do so, because I brought up the subject that 50% of men have unnecessary radiation for prostate cancer, but the problem is we don't know which men will benefit. She nodded in agreement, but never once hinted that I would only get 10%-15% benefit!. Gosh, all this stuff we learn later.

I guess it all boils down to what one gal said on another thread, "you throw anything you have at the disease in the hope that some will be useful."

Glenis

1Athena1 · September 2010

ichelle, I think it sometimes comes down to people thinking that the more Draconian the treatment, the more effective it must be - at least that is my surmise about chemo - like using the Spanish Inquisition to convert non Catholics. Useless and barbaric. But I digress....

From what I have heard there has been some movement in protocols re:radiation. With node-negative women, it is increasingly being recommended against because they are finding less of a difference over the long term.

Years ago, I would have been a shoo-in case with my disease profile. As it happens, I was a borderline case because I was node-positive but I had a double mx and the tumour was nowhere near the chest wall. There seems to be a rethinking of radiation for early stage prophylaxis (I know nothing about any other stage - if I were Stage IV I am sure it would be one of my preferred treatments). A recent, rather important study in node-negative post-menopausal women found that it really had no protective effect vis-a-vis recurrence. Don't know what they will find about pre-menopausal.

I opted against radiation because of an accumulation of reasons. I didn't think it would be the tipping point in my case. There is a very small risk of both cardiovascular problems (v. v. small if the cancer is on the right side, as was my case) and a small but larger risk to the lungs. I had major heart surgery as a toddler and had just quit smoking after my mastectomy. My calculation was that I didn't want to tempt fate with my heart and, given that breast cancer can spread to the lungs, and that smoking can cause lung cancer, I didn't need to put my poor lungs in harm's way. I was also swayed by the stories of fatigue. I have an uncommon fear of fatigue. I have a history of suffering from fatigue for years as an SE of meds I was taking for another disorder and I have said to myself "Never Again - Better Death than Fatigue."

So I suppose we all come at this from unique angles. Statistics don't sway me. They are grossly misused in healthcare management; a casino gambler's folly. People don't understand that you cannot use statistics to determine individual outcomes - that is a misuse of the science. They do it all the time, because we humans are superstitious and hopeful (and I include myself). Finally, I am something of a statistical wonder. I won the lottery backwards. After all, what are the chances of having the two potentially life threatening illnesses in addition to past congenital heart problems that required life-saving, cutting edge surgery? Less than 1 percent.

mathteacher · September 2010

Painterly,

Regarding radiation, I was told there was a 40% "benefit." That sounded very good. Then when I got home my son asked, "40% of what? And what does "benefit" mean?" Embarassed

Turns out the 40% was a "relative risk" statistical number that shouldn't be used with patients contemplating treatment. The actual number, the "absolute risk" benefit was a little over 11%.

But the worse thing was I ASSumed benefit meant survival when benefit actually meant local recurrence. I skipped radiation. I didn't want to do anything toxic that didn't have any survival benefit.

JanetinVirginia · September 2010

I go back and forth thinking this whole situation is a crap shoot. I am opting for a mastectomy for several reasons - I don't want radiation; already had one surgery - an excisional biopsy where margins were not clear; no guarantee the second time around they would get it all. I surely don't want 3 surgeries (lumpectomies). I have small breasts to begin with. I have some IDC and some DCIS. Mine is left breast and I've heard of the heart/lung risks of radiation too (although they aren't well defined either). Sloan Kettering has been using a prone radiation therapy table (like the setup for breast MRIs) where you are on your stomach. The radiation field only goes through the breast and not to heart/lung. I don't know if it is being used anywhere else in country - I know it's not available in any hospital in my area because I've asked them all.

I've had this conversation with 2 different breast surgeons and even they don't give the same answer. With no node involvement, the standard of care choice is lumpectomy & radiation or mastectomy. The survival rates are the same (both surgeons agreed on that). And it's pretty good odds for stages 1 and 2 (would like those in the lottery:). The recurrence rate is less with a mastectomy vs. lump/radiation. This is where the statistics get fuzzy. One said 1% recurrence rate in mastectomies. The other said 3%. For lump/radiation it was 5% to 12% in lump/radiation. If it does recur in the same breast, you can't have radiation again on the same breast and end up with a mastectomy anyway. I have no idea what the stats are for other recurrence locations or other mets. Quite frankly I don't think the docs know either. You'd think with over ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY THOUSAND women getting diagnosed in the U.S. alone each year - they could at least be working with the same statistics. It's frustrating & infuriating when the PATIENT has to guess what to do for her best chance. I think the only hope down the road is a breakthrough cure. There was one for melanoma just THIS YEAR. So, there IS hope out there.

1Athena1 · September 2010

And, again, statistics cannot be used to predict an individual person's outcome. That is a misuse of the science and it is pervasive.

I laugh every time I remember the literature at the hospital where I was getting my needle boipsy. It kept saying not to worry, because "80 percent of biopsies are benign."

So 100 percent of women are being told not to worry because 80 percent of biopsies are benign.

Fear really is a huge distorter of the truth.

Member_of_the_Club · September 2010

All these stats depend on your risk to begin with. If your chances of survival are already above 90%, you don't get as much benefit as you would if your chances were, like mine initially, 80%. But thats a good thing.

The mastectomy versus lumpectomy choice is a complicated one. I know of women who have had very serious complications after mastectomy, as it is major surgery. I am an athlete and wanted to do everything I could to minimize loss of function. I was running within a few days of my lumpectomy. I have had no long term SEs of the radiation (except it made the breast plumper, so it looks "younger" while my other breast shows its age) and didn't give it much thought until a few years ago when I had a MRI that showed something highly likely to be a local recurrence and I was faced with the likelihood of a mastectomy. I realized that I really wanted to keep my breast and was relieved when my biopsy was b9.

Athena is right that stats can't tell you what will happen to you. They have to be taken for what they are, but they can help you balance risk and benefits. If my chances for survival without chemo were 95% and with chemo only 96% -- sure, I could have been in that 1% gap and gotten a bad result --- but the odds would tell me that the risk outweighed the benefit and I would not have had chemo. Turns out my risk/benefit calculation were different.

I think what happens here, and I've noticed it with my pet-peeve procedure, oophorectomies, is that everyone quickly jumps all over big pharma and medical treatments but understates the risks from surgery and the long term results of surgery. All of these things have to be weighed in terms of your personal situation.

Member_of_the_Club · September 2010

Also, your surgeon probably won't tell you this but you can get lymphedema from a mastectomy even without having nodes removed. Its rare, but happens.

LuvRVing · September 2010

This is a really good discussion!

I agree that the "80% of lumps are benign" statistic is useless. I doubt it applies to post-menopausal women who have NEVER had a cyst or fibroadenoma.

Because I am diabetic, I refused to do any chemo that caused neuropathy. And I was extremely concerned about the use of massive doses of steroids to minimize side effects - it really does a number on glucose levels. So what does the "brilliant" oncologist recommend for me? CMF.. And what would I gain? On average, 229 days added to my average life expectancy. And the risks? Permanent "chemo brain" and leukemia. Seriously? How can they recommend this in good conscience? I guess if I knew I was down to my last 229 days, I might grasp for the time.

Were they that desperate to "sell" me something, anything?

Michelle

Janeluvsdogs · September 2010

It seems like most oncs are decent people. They feel they have to recommend something-- even if doesn't increase your lifespan. One onc told me he thinks the placebo effect is significant in a lot of these treatments.

Member_of_the_Club · September 2010

Placebo effect doesn't work on me. I tried acupuncture after some of my chemo treatments and it did nada, zip, nothing. I was disappointed.

Janeluvsdogs · September 2010

No, the oncologist was referring to chemo having a big placebo component.

Kathy044 · September 2010

Dr Susan Love suggests in her Breast Book that post menopause women have fewer lumps because hormones are no longer cycling, so that only 50% of post menopause lumps are benign.

But back to topic, I didn't want to have radiation either, my mother had cobalt radiation in the late 1970's and I strongly feel that this shortened her life, though she lived til she was over 80. I knew radiation was quite different today, but still. .. OTOH having general anesthesia increases risk of dementia,which I fear even more, so I opted for the shorter surgery time of having lumpectomy/rads.

But I did refuse radiation to the upper axilla and superclavical area, because that was over and above the lumpectomy/rads deal. I didn't need boosts either as my surgeon was able to get good margins.

I did have chemo. As for days added to life those calculations are based on the average life expectancy of a group. My onc felt that with my current health and level of activity (at age 65) I could easily live to be 90, which raises the bar a bit.

LtotheK · September 2010

Statistics are useless if you want to boil it down to every person being individual, but they are still the foundation for a lot of decision making, both holistic and allopathic. We are using them here all the time, for instance, not doing chemo because of a mere 5% benefit, or looking at absolute vs. relative risk.

There are a couple of issues when trying to get to the bottom of things. Even the best hospitals are totally overworked. Doctors are supposed to see, what, four patients an hour. Even when I go in armed, I still always feel like I just came off a ride at the county fair when I leave an office, and have a million more questions afterwards.

In my case, I chose chemo not because I have faith per se in the chemicals, I absolutely don't. My cancer is a horrible jumble of what shouldn't have happened: young age, incredibly healthy vegetarian, grade 3, and in some ways, the worst part: smack on the line for Tailor X pending research: a 12 on the Oncotype. Statistics can get spun a lot of different ways. Chemo gives me a 4% advantage, or something ridiculous like that. I only had a 2% chance of getting this in the first place.

Member, I think you and I are a lot alike. I also found acupuncture to be absolute bunk--and mostly because placebo does NOT work on this practical Virgo type.

What I'm hearing so far, based on some outstanding feedback, and I hope this post might be helpful to someone else:

For early-stage breast cancer, what is the absolute vs. relative risk benefit of radiation?

What are the long term risks, and in what percentage of the population at 5, 10 and more years?

What is the overall survival stastistic for my profile?

How does local recurrence relate to overall survival? Why is the overall survival statistic lower than the recurrence risk?

LtotheK · September 2010

Also, regarding tacking on days to the end of one's life--that's really statistics gone wild. Remember that those days are distributed among a range of women, some who got years, some who got nothing. What you are banking on in this game is avoiding Stage IV. Now, no one knows exactly how to do that yet.

As for leukemia, etc. there is no doubt chemo causes horrible SEs, and in diabetics, it's another ball of wax. But, it's a rare SE. It's easy to dismiss chemo by talking about all the SEs as if they are inevitable, or even consistent. They aren't.

I think Jane is 100% right: the doctors are held by oath to offer what they peddle, and chemo is one of those things. I only wish there were more study on naturopathic alternatives. I'm sure they'd have something parallel by now. Sadly, the pharmas rule the day on that front.

Member_of_the_Club · September 2010

MHP70, I am also a vegetarian and have been my entire adult life. Also I was physically fit and had no family history when diagnosed -- I was 42, so not as young as you, but still young. I am not as skeptical of "big pharma" as many others here. I think the problem is that they aren't aggressive enough in their research and we don't have enough outside funding for non-corporate research. So we get baby steps in advancement. Herceptin was an exception to this, but it was a tough slog for the folks behind it. We need more support for scientists who are willing to take bold steps.

I think we need not only more research into alt approaches, but more oversight as well. Supplements, for example, are exempt from the government oversight that meds are subjected to even thought they are drugs. So folks can make all sorts of claims about unproven approaches and the supplements themselves are not subjected to the same scrutiny for purity and side effects as other drugs. This is scary. I remember years ago taking L--tryptophan as a natural sleep aid and then it was discovered that all forms of it in this country were corrupted by toxins and people died and suffered devastating illnesses. And it really didn't help me sleep either.

Anyway, ask your onc these questions. They are specific for you and your situation and you should have those answers.

LtotheK · September 2010

Spot on, Member.

I'm going to also do some legwork on the Europe vs. America thing. I spend a large portion of my life in another European city, and from what I know, their big pharmas produce what looks like pretty much the exact same treatment as I'd be getting here. While European studies are different, I'm not sure it means that Euros are getting milk thistle instead of TC. But I'm open, and I want to know more.

And as usual, I'll report back what I find.

Member_of_the_Club · September 2010

Back when I was going through active treatment, they used hormonals in Europe more heavily than we do and chemo less. They also had lower survival rates. I wonder if that has changed.

mathteacher · September 2010

My neighbor said chemo was a breeze compared to radiation. I didn't understand until I read this.

From the radiation forum:

Connie07 wrote: http://community.breastcancer.org/forum/70/topic/747085?page=1#post_1684284

Since finishing rads over 2 years ago, I am floored at the vast array of stinking symptoms and side effects that continue to bombard us. I remember, as a kid, knowing that radiation was a bad, bad thing. Yet they introduce it into our bodies as a healing and preventative measure. They never went over any of the awful-ness that happens for years after radiation treatments.

I have had all clear mammograms since the surgery and radiation. Until this past one in November, it showed a cyst in the 'scar' area. A Necrotic Fatty Cyst. Then, maybe because I knew it was there, it began to hurt. It began to feel harder and harder. I asked, BS inserted a needle and drew of fluid. Just fatty she said, nothing weird, and, "it's from the radiation". Like it was what we all had for lunch. Then the area began to turn pink, then red, she needled it again and then did a punch biopsy. Two rounds of antibiotics and a yeast infection from hell. On the Wed. before Christmas, so I had to wait throughout the entire Christmas weekend for B9 result. Harrowing.

boob still hurts. I protect it. Can't lie on that side. Have developed some lymphedema. And time after time after time, I remember that rads onc, when I would see him at the end of a week of rads saying, "see?, this is ALL we are doing to you". ALL??? All my ass. If I'd had a clue that this crap would still be bothering me on a daily basis... all from the rads. I would have refused it. After reading a lot of posts in this site, I believe I would choose mast over lump&rads again.

I always said, if they ever told me one of my breasts was sick, I'd say, cut that puppy off. But the reality came and they said they probably got it all in the original biopsy and the lumpectomy had clean margins the first time. I think the rads treatments were horrible to experience, miserable to have them in the late summer in the deep south, being of fair skin, I burned like MAD. Blisters the size of quarters under the breast and under the arm. I cried every day. And frankly, the idea that they cut my breast and took a hunk of it out completely freaked me out. I promise to be a complete basket case if they ever want to take more. It's taken me this long to come to terms with the little bit they took. To look at myself in the mirror, naked, again. To not cry every day.

Another friend has fibrosis on her lungs from the radiation. Others have Thyroid problems, from the radiation. I also have severe bone and joint disease up and down my spine - you guessed it, from the RADIATION. And we PAID them for this?

Questions about radiation in early stage IDC

Comments

Categories