Given Incorrect DX information Twice

This is so unsettling...and unacceptable. Honestly, I think that you should consider getting a second opinion at a different cancer center. The issues related to treatment are just too important for you to not be sure. An accurate diagnosis is most important. Any great breast surgeon would understand your rationale for getting a 2nd opinion, given what happened.

I completely agree with Scrafgal. Look into a 2nd opinion. I honestly do not know how I would react, most likely very troubled and worried about the kind of care I would get from this team if this is how things start off. Please keep us posted. No matter what, remember you're not alone. I'm so sorry that on top of being here in the first place, this extra confusion, anxiety, and stress has put onto your plate. Hang in there as best you can and try to stay distracted when possible...easier said than done. Hugs.

I am curious who you would be seeking a second opinion from? I am not discouraging you, just wondering. The error seems to be on the part of the pathologist, or whatever person in the pathology department typed the report, and the pathologist who signed off on it. To a certain extent it is difficult to get a second opinion from a pathologist on the tumor sample itself, you generally only get an opinion off their already prepared slides.There is no point in a second opinion from a breast surgeon because you have already had surgery - correct? Your BS is pretty much out of the picture. The person in the BS office who gave you info over the phone made an egregious error, but IMHO you should receive all pathology info in a face to face appt with the doctor - that info should not be delivered by someone in the office. Another medical oncologist would need to do the same thing the one you already have is doing - checking in with the pathologist to clarify the invasive component size. Once the tumor size has been confirmed, the road forward is more clear. I also wondered the same thing as farmerlucy - where is your staging info coming from? The report? If so, the tumor size is given in a measurement that many confuse with stage. The TNM staging system uses measurements of size, which are just a part of the total number of things considered for stage - those are tumor size, location, and nodal status. The TNM system incorporates letters and numbers together for sizing. This is what it looks like for a tumor less than 2cm (20mm):

T1 tumor - 2cm or less

T1mi - tumor is .1cm (1mm) or less
T1a - tumor is greater than .1cm (1mm), but not more than .5cm (5mm)
T1b - tumor is greater than .5cm (5mm), but not more than 1cm (10mm)
T1c - tumor is greater than 1cm (10mm), but not more than 2cm (20mm)

Stage 1A, which incorporates tumor size, location, and nodal status is for a tumor in the breast, that is less than 2cm (20mm), and nodes that are clear. So your tumor size can be T1b and your stage would be 1A, if this applies to your stats.

teaka, wow, that's a significant error.

For those who are explaining that the tumor might 0.7cm (or 7mm) and therefore be a T1b tumor, with the Stage being IA, I think that's already clear from teaka's post. The 1B she referred to was referenced in the pathology report with regard to tumor size. Nowhere in her post did she mention Staging.

The confusion within the pathology report is whether the tumor is 0.7mm or 0.7cm.

Option 1: 0.7mm tumor, which is a T1mic tumor. Stage IA.

Option 2: 0.7cm tumor, which is a T1b tumor. Stage IA.

teaka's pathology report indicted that she has a 0.7mm tumor and stated that the tumor is 1b. That's one from Option 1 and one from Option 2. Impossible, hence the error.

A 0.7mm tumor, even being HER2+, would not warrant no chemo or Herceptin.

A 0.7cm tumor pretty much always comes with a recommendation for chemo and Herceptin.

This isn't a misunderstanding of Staging or tumor size within Staging. There is an error on the pathology report that had a huge impact on the treatment plan.

teaka, I hope you get this figured out quickly. I hope you do have a 0.7mm tumor. And I urge you to make a formal complaint so that the Radiology department is called out for this. Every pathology report should be written by one person and signed off by another. So two people let this critical error slip by. Unacceptable.

Yes, I'm with Beesie...thinking of you.

I'm sorry to hear the chemo news and the cancelled recon, Teaka. You're not alone. Hopefully others will chime in soon with ways to fight to keep your hair and to find your cat! I remember my sister telling me that there is a test that exists now that can tell you if you will lose your hair during chemo or not. She said her friend had the test and unfortunately she was one that would and did lose her hair. I'm sorry I don't know the specifics and maybe it's incorrect. Word of mouth sometimes can be and I didn't have experience with Chemo. So sorry this is the path ahead. Hopefully you will win the war on the hair front. Hang in there. Easier said than done....but I am thinking of you. Feel sad. Feel mad. Feel whatever you need to feel. This is a hard thing and a scary thing to face. Give yourself permission to be blue and to work through it bit by bit. Sending you hugs.

teaka, sorry to hear the news, but as you (and your oncologist) suspected, 0.7cm did seem more likely given the 1B reference in the pathology report.

Good luck with chemo. Hope it goes as well as possible for you.

Has the cat come home?

teaka123

I am really glad that things are working more smoothly for you...and that you first chemo session went well. I also am happy that you let your surgeon know about the errors that were made. He needed to know and sounds like you made your voice heard!👍👍

Keep us posted on how you are doing during treatment. Wishing the very best for you!