Biopsy confirmed cancer but nutrition medicine?

The biopsy can be trusted. It will not only confirm cancer, but will determine the specific type of breast cancer, which determines the specific treatments that will be helpful.

All cancers are not alike. Some types of cancer (prostate, ovarian, etc.) produce reliable cancer markers. Breast cancer does not.

Your nutritional practitioner, by suggesting that cancer markers would have validity in a stage 2 breast cancer, has demonstrated insufficient knowledge of breast cancer. I'd be careful.

Please ask for specific cases in which she has treated the exact same type of breast cancer that your wife has: How many? What were the outcomes? What is her training? Is she licensed? These are exactly the same questions you would, and hopefully will, ask a traditional provider. Please do not think that I'm flatly anti-alternative; I am not. I just am concerned that your provider would suggest an inappropriate and unreliable diagnostic tool to call into question a clinically proven biopsy.

Please let me clarify that while cancer markers are valid in some types of cancer, they still are not diagnostic, as multiple factors can lead to, for instance, a high PSA. Generally, some markers lead to diagnostic procedures (biopsy) and some are used to track progression after diagnosis.

It takes a biopsy to confirm BC (any cancer) and the type. Stage is determined at surgery (unless mets are found in Scans then Stage IV) - not from the biopsy. It can be highly suspected but not an absolute.

Why are you assuming that the first line of TX will be a mast.? There are different protocols for the different types that vary a lot. Surgery is not always the first to do - neoadjuvant chemo (Chemo done before surgery) is becoming more common for better surgical outcomes. Also, a lumpectomy might be the best choice for her to make.

TX plan should be done by a 'Oncology Team' including not only the Surgeon but also the Medical Oncologist and Radiological Oncologist working together for the best TX plan - not 3 TXs that are not coordinated.

Added: What scans/tests (CT/MRI/PET/MUGA/EKG/etc.) been scheduled to check what might also be going on in the rrst of the body)? ER/PR and HER2 status? Genetic tests (BRCA/etc.)? Oncotype? Who is going to be the Recon surgeon, the type of Recon and is Recon even an option at surgery - not always an option? Usually a Plastic Surgeon, not the Surgeon who does a mast. or lumpectomy does Recon. These all come into play with the total TX plan.

My tumour markers were never elevated even when I had stage 3 5cm cáncer in one breast and the lymph nodes........so please go by the surgical biopsy for treatment decisions.  Best advice though it not to rush in to any decisions as these are permanent ones, you can take a week or two to decide as at Stage 2, unless the diagnosis is Inflammatory Breast Cancer there really is no rush............

She says: "that her patient cancer stages have been reduced from level 4 to 2."

I agree with exbrnxgrl. Stage IV (Stage 4) breast cancer can be treated to control it or hold it in check, but it is not reversible (i.e., it cannot be reversed to a lower stage).

In my opinion, this is a fraudulent or misleading claim, and the "nutritionist" person cannot be trusted.

BarredOwl

I think that there is a lot of evidence that nutritional deficiencies lead to cancer formation; getting your body back into range and understanding what went wrong IS cutting edge medicine.

However, improving one's health status doesn't replace that there is a mutant cell line that has already confounded the immune system. Traditional therapies are hard but they were developed to try to reduce the disease burden.

If you really want to attack this with more knowledge you can:

• find a FABNO (naturopathic onc) who can order other blood labs to check for nutritional imbalances. My MO ordered the requisite metabolic and CBC blood panels and they were perfect but I could tell I was deficient. My magnesium, ferritin, and zinc were at the floor and my cooper was sky high.

• do chemo first, after a biopsy. You can see if they have correctly targeted the drugs to the cancer. MD Anderson has been espousing this for years and it is what happens for metastatic patients. If you have surgery first it is just for the surgeons to stage you but you might get a chemo after that that does nothing or worse, cause progression, and you won't know.

• make sure they preserve your core biopsy as it holds information about your cancer. It might be small (and dang they hurt) but there is more to be understood later on perhaps. If money isn't an object you can even get live tissue testing done now via Weisenthal Group before chemo.

• I have never had any of my alternative providers suggest that they can heal me ever. Our aim has been to make my body strong and to not fear the cancer. If anyone suggested that they could cure me I would get away from there quickly.

• tumor biomarkers are good to watch if you can afford it. They are very finicky but they are specific to your body and getting a baseline before treatment can let you monitor them post treatment. It's something whereas the standard, as you will see, is pretty minimal -- it's like docs don't want to think about the 30% of BC patients who will eventually die from our disease. They were monitoring my stage 1 BC friend and she did all that was recommended of her. Five years later a tumor marker went up and they caught a lung met early. It is unusual that they did this but it gave her more options.

I hope this is helpful.

Ann