Confusing...
A new piece of evidence...
...that I am a star :)
From a friend who is a physician:
"I don't have any doctorly words of wisdom because I have never heard of adenosarcoma of the uterus"
This is for the nice part. The trouble comes from when my specialist confuses me...
"Yes I agree but our pathologists feel very comfortable. The radical treatment applies in the case of trying to clear all potentially microscopic metastatic disease but in this case there seems to be very little potential for that. I am quite willing to be very aggressive if you would like but that may not be necessary at this time."
Then, to support her opinion, she attaches the pathology report that I had seen after the first surgery (which indicated another type of cancer). Now I just read what it says next to the DIAGNOSIS line, as "diagnosis" is the only word I understand in those reports.
Sentences like "These cells are CD34 positive and focally S-100 positive." don't mean much to me frankly; although in this particular case, I am glad to know because I had been wondering about that.
Next to diagnosis is written "Uterus. Polypectomy" which describes the first surgery. This was at the time when no one could agree on what the problem was because there wasn't enough sample to make an accurate diagnosis (apparently, common with adenosarcoma since half the tumor is benign and the other half is malignant, it is often mis-diagnosed, even with biopsies)
The second pathology report that I was shown after the 2nd surgery clearly states "malignant Mullerian adenosarcoma" on the diagnosis line...next to which the words "Conization of the cervix" were written, This is not the report that my oncologist has attached...
I emailed back that I was confused (explained why) and said that I would call her. I wish all these people could speak plain English...
"I am confused. I thought that this was the initial pathology report (after the polypectomy), not the second pathology report (after the conization). The pathology report I was shown states "Mullerian Adenosarcoma".
Her response this morning: "I will look into that as I know we saw both the cone and the polyp."
tbc...
...that I am a star :)
From a friend who is a physician:
"I don't have any doctorly words of wisdom because I have never heard of adenosarcoma of the uterus"
This is for the nice part. The trouble comes from when my specialist confuses me...
"Yes I agree but our pathologists feel very comfortable. The radical treatment applies in the case of trying to clear all potentially microscopic metastatic disease but in this case there seems to be very little potential for that. I am quite willing to be very aggressive if you would like but that may not be necessary at this time."
Then, to support her opinion, she attaches the pathology report that I had seen after the first surgery (which indicated another type of cancer). Now I just read what it says next to the DIAGNOSIS line, as "diagnosis" is the only word I understand in those reports.
Sentences like "These cells are CD34 positive and focally S-100 positive." don't mean much to me frankly; although in this particular case, I am glad to know because I had been wondering about that.
Next to diagnosis is written "Uterus. Polypectomy" which describes the first surgery. This was at the time when no one could agree on what the problem was because there wasn't enough sample to make an accurate diagnosis (apparently, common with adenosarcoma since half the tumor is benign and the other half is malignant, it is often mis-diagnosed, even with biopsies)
The second pathology report that I was shown after the 2nd surgery clearly states "malignant Mullerian adenosarcoma" on the diagnosis line...next to which the words "Conization of the cervix" were written, This is not the report that my oncologist has attached...
I emailed back that I was confused (explained why) and said that I would call her. I wish all these people could speak plain English...
"I am confused. I thought that this was the initial pathology report (after the polypectomy), not the second pathology report (after the conization). The pathology report I was shown states "Mullerian Adenosarcoma".
Her response this morning: "I will look into that as I know we saw both the cone and the polyp."
tbc...
posted by Finance Monkey at 5:17 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home