"Microcalcifications" are a hallmark of Th1, and I am puzzled why they are now regarded as a sign of 'cancer'. Still, given the lack of knowledge generally being exhibited by Oncologists these days (my 'exhibit 1' is this paper from Reuters earlier today, "Vitamin D may help slow breast cancer -study" http://tinyurl.com/yk7w5v )

The key thing to remember is that cancer kills because it is progressive. The cells grow too fast for your immune system to deal with. Since you are now in Phase 3, your immune system should be capable of doing a pretty good job of cleaning up any cancer cells which happen to form. So I would not be too eager to intervene until I knew that I really had a proliferative disease.

Finally, here is a quote for Doc - "Everybody knows Inflammation induces Cancer"- Francesco Marincola MD, Senior Investigator, NIH (spoken during his presentation at the "Host Defences" conference at UCSD last week).

I would be happy to chat with your oncologist about the problems with the flow cytometry markers, if that would help. to make sure they are not relying on flow cytometry markers.

At the very least, you need to have the biopsy tissue stained to differentiate B-cells and T-cells. You also need to get a better assessment of what the rate of proliferation might be." <<

Be sure to get an "open" biopsy or an "excised" biopsy (not a needle biopsy).

-If necessary have someone to support you as a patient advocate to understand and assist you in achieving your best interest.
-Prepare in advance by asking on the Board about your situation.
-Discuss your needs with your Dr before the surgery.
-Ask the Dr to confer with Dr Marshall.

There is little doubt amongst some of my professional colleagues that many cancers are rooted in Th1 inflammation. See, for example, Dr Alan Cantwell's papers at http://www.joimr.org

It is dangerous to assume that the MP in any way harms the prognosis of a cancer. There is no data indicating that this would be so, and there is one case history indicating that it doesn't.

~Trevor

CA 27.29

This article published in 2003 in the journal of the American Family Physician explains that "CA 27.29 also can be found in patients with benign disorders of the breast, liver, and kidney, and in patients with ovarian cysts."

Sarcoidosis would be considered a benign (non-malignant) disorder that can affect the breast, liver, kidney or ovary.

The CA 27.29 test is not reliable in all cases. Information from the FDA says, "Because the (CA 27.29) test did not detect the cancer antigen in all cases and detected it falsely in others, FDA based its approval on use of the test in conjunction with other procedures to monitor the recurrence of Stage II or Stage III breast cancer.

I don't understand what my pathology report means

This puts me in a difficult position. I am not an oncologist, I am a scientist. I am interested in the pathogenesis of cancer. I am far less interested in the tests which are currently thought to be indicative of cancers,as these tests change from year-to-year.

If this was a report on, for example, my wife, I would want her to discuss the following with Doc.

1. A needle biopsy is usually not capable of preserving the granulomatous structure characteristic of Sarcoidosis. The diameter of the needle is small, and granuloma are often large by comparison. This makes microscopic histological examination somewhat uncertain without specific staining.
2. I see no attempt to stain for T cells or B cells.
3. The issue is not that a 'mass' was found - I would ask if it is a Thymal mass (indicating T-cell immune disease) or a proliferative mass (B-cell cancer)
4. The marker "c-erbB-2" which is supposed to indicate a bad prognosis for Breast Cancer is reported as negative.
5. Only one out of the three markers was positive, and that marker seems to be a pretty general marker to me (an Estrogen Receptor Protein)

I would want to at least ask Doc to wait for the remaining test results to come back before I had to see a surgeon. I know what the surgeon's specialty is, and I know what he is going to want to discuss.

Again, I am not trying to give you advice, but only guidance as to what a scientist sees in the data you posted. Only your Doc and Surgeon can help you decide what course to follow. Only they are licensed to look after your health. I would be happy to discuss the T-cell vs B-cell issue with Doc, if that would help.

..Trevor..

Mammography

Mammography is a diagnostic procedure using x-rays to create images of breast tissue. It is used to detect and evaluate abnormalities such as tumors and cysts. There are two basic forms of mammography: screening and diagnostic.

" Even the best radiologists are will inaccurately read a mammogram in 2 to 3 percent of cases, while some series show that other doctors incorrectly read the images in 20 percent or more. " Chapter 8. The Eye of the Beholder, How Doctors Think by Jerome Groopman, MD.

Screening mammography

A screening mammogram is used to evaluate for cancer in women with no symptoms and no history of breast surgery. Mammograms are used for comparative study: to compare the left breast to the right, and to compare current films to older films. The goal of regular screening is to detect small cancers (when they are still small) because they are easier to treat and usually have a better prognosis for the patient. It is suggested women have a mammogram around age 35 to provide a baseline study for comparison with mammograms taken when they are 40 and older.

How often women younger than age 50 should have a screening mammogram is controversial. Most agree that women between 50-69 may significantly reduce their risk of dying from breast cancer by having a mammogram every 1-2 years, but there is insufficient evidence supporting the same benefit for women between age 40-49.

The National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society recommend that women 40 and older have a mammogram every 1-2 years, and that women with significant risk factors should discuss earlier screening, and how often, with their own physicians.

In standard mammogram studies, one breast is positioned between two panels and slowly compressed. Two images of each breast are obtained: a side view (from the center of body to the side) and a view from above. X-rays penetrate the breast tissue to produce images recorded on film. Different tissues in the breast absorb x-rays differently, resulting in shades of black, gray, and white on the film:

Fatty tissue absorbs little of the x-rays to appear black or dark gray.

Normal fibrous and glandular tissues (such as milk glands, lymph nodes) contain fluid, which causes them to absorb a moderate amount of x-rays and appear light gray.

Fibrous and glandular tissues may contain calcium and appear nearly white or completely white.

Cancerous tissues contain fluid and sometimes calcium, which makes small cancers difficult to distinguish from normal breast tissue. As a cancer grows, it begins to appear whiter than breast tissue on film.

Comparison with prior mammograms helps identify changes in patterns on the film that may identify small breast cancers.
Findings from screening mammograms
Because small cancers are difficult to distinguish from normal breast tissue on a mammogram and may not be palpable during a breast exam, some will be undetected. Cases that escape diagnosis are referred to as false negatives. These cancers are usually found after they have grown to a size that can be seen or felt.

Other conditions in the breasts may look similar to cancer, such as calcifications, fibrosis or cysts. The radiologist will order additional studies focusing on the area of the breast with any suspicious lesion. If additional studies are inconclusive, a biopsy may be recommended. If the biopsy eventually proves to be non-cancerous, the finding is called a false positive.

Calcifications often develop in women's breasts because breasts produce milk, which contains calcium. Because many breast cancers contain calcifications, the doctor will want to determine whether any calcification is in cancerous tissue. Most calcifications can be evaluated using additional mammogram views. Some that are difficult will require additional studies.

A mass, or a lump, found on a mammogram may be a lymph node, cyst, or fibroadenoma (fibrous milk gland). These types of masses usually are easy to identify and do not require additional studies. A new mass or a mass that has changed or grown since the last mammogram will usually be evaluated using ultrasound. A mass may be due to an inflammatory disease such as sarcoidosis. Sarcoidosis should be considered in the differential diagnosis of a mass in any patient with a previously suspected or confirmed diagnosis of sarcoidosis.

Several masses can be seen in women who have fibrocystic disease. If there is a change in the size or shape of the edges of a mass, or if a suspicious calcification is seen within a mass, the radiologist may order additional studies.

An area in one breast that has a distinctly different appearance than the same area in the other breast is referred to as asymmetric density. This finding usually requires additional studies using mammography and/or ultrasound.

Dense breast tissue can make mammogram evaluation difficult because the tissue can obscure small cancers. Pre-menopausal women usually have denser breast tissue than women who are past menopause.

Diagnostic Mammography

Diagnostic imaging is required under these conditions:

Breast implants

Severe fibrocystic disease

After surgery for early breast cancer that did not remove the entire breast

Abnormal findings on a screening mammogram (change in a mass)

New findings during a clinical breast exam (lump, nipple discharge)

Types of imaging used for diagnosis include special mammography views, views from different angles and ultrasound. If the findings obtained from additional studies indicate that there is a solid lesion, a biopsy will be recommended.

Special mammogram views

Magnification produces larger imaging of a portion of the breast that contains calcifications or masses.

Spot compression applies more pressure to a small region in the breast. This thins out an area of dense tissue so the x-rays produce a clearer image, making it easier for the radiologist to see if the tissue is normal or abnormal. This is useful in women with denser breast tissue, where it is difficult to get adequate compression for best imaging.

Sometimes views of the breast from different angles are required to see a questionable area. Typical additional views include:

Cleavage view - Both breasts are compressed between a set of panels at the same time and a top-to-bottom view of a suspicious finding in tissue between the breasts.

Rolled view - The breast is rolled to the right or left, compressed, and a top-to-bottom view is taken of a questionable area located in dense tissue.

Mediolateral view - The view is taken from the center of the chest to the outer side of the breast.

Lateromedial view - The view is taken from the outer side of the breast to the center of the chest.

Ultrasound

Ultrasound is used to help determine if a mass is a cyst or a possible cancer. Ultrasound is performed with a small, handheld device called a transducer. First, a gel is spread on the skin. Then the technician passes the transducer over the breast, which directs sound waves through the skin into the body. The sound waves create an image of the breast on a computer monitor

MRI

-Recent research (June 2007 published in August) indicates that an MRI which doesn't give off radiation detects 97% of breast tumors, but is known to give false positives. Researchers also indicated that needle biopsies can be guaged better by MRI's, but it is essential one gets the procedure done by one of only a handful of experienced rad doc in the US. Mammograms detect around 51% of tumors depending on whose research one reads. Specifically they are better for detecting microcalcifications to test for DCIS stage 0 than tumors.

MRIs do not hurt, nor do the Ultrasounds which is one of the reasons I refused (and will continue, LOL) to have mammograms and they don't give off radiation. Had the rad doc told me she was looking for microcalcifications, I would not have had the mammogram at all. I guess it was my mistake for not pushing the issue. The place I now go for treatment is at a major cancer center of a top medical school. We'll see how the next MRI goes in January. If something questionable shows up, then I will PM you for further info on Thermal Imaging. ~DNStog

Thermal imaging

-I did some research into thermal imaging (breast thermography) as an alternative and ended up calling Dr. George E. Chapman, who has written a number of texts on using thermal imaging and interpreting the results of thermal imaging, especially for early detection of breast cancer to learn more about it. (He did say that a baseline mammogram is important for interpreting any future results showing changes large enough to register on a mammogram.)

If I can remember this right, he said that the heat generated by the extra blood flow to a tumor will show up on a thermal image photo (they use special heat sensing cameras) up to ten years before the tumor would be large enough to be detected by a mammogram. Of course, heat caused by other reasons (such as infection) would show up as well, so having a qualified person, such as Dr. Chapman, interpret the results is as important as the training of the technician who takes the images.

My images showed some areas of black (cold temperatures) that were interpreted as stastically being most frequently associated with cystic and fibrocystic breasts (suggestive of hormone imbalance).

Here is part of the report: "performed 20 minutes post onset of examination and following a 60 second hand soak in 50 degree water. This provides an autonomic challenge and a response of sympathetic vaso-constriction. The skins microcirculation is further shut down and we are able to contrast any non-responsive blood vessels that may be associated with malignant neoplasms. This includes the neo-angiogenic blood vessels and those that are dilated because of nitric oxide."

At the time I was also having abdominal pain and paid for an additional set of images of the abdomen. The report stated: "Increased heat is observed above the umbilicus and prmarily at the right upper abdominal quadrant. Question pancreatitis and/or gall bladder dysfunction  based on thermal patterns. May be associated with 'Head Zones'. Additional clinical information is needed for confirmation."

Kind of interesting, but I would not pay for it out of pocket unless I felt it would provide more clarity on an important health issue. Perhaps such a procedure is available in your area. I was told that Kaiser in Northern California is using it as a standard diagnostic tool now. I am sure it was much kinder and gentler than what you describe above.

I also remember him making a comment about the equipment for mammograms being 1970's (?need to check this date?) technology, approved for use at around the same time as the thermal imaging technology. But while the mammogram equipment is basically the same to this day, the equipment for thermography has moved forward significantly with computer analysis, etc. ~Joyful

Breast cancer treatment

See Chemotherapy and Radiation

Where did you get the idea that chemotherapy was in any way compatible with healing from your Th1 disease? Chemotherapy is immunosuppressive, aggressively so, and chemo will allow your bacterial load to return, by shutting down your immune system.

My assessment of your situation is that the MP has restored your immune system, allowed it to fight the cancer, which was an aggressive ductal carcinoma, but has (reportedly) been inactived by your immune system. You have dodged the bullet that killed your forebears. I know how tough it is to tread the line between old-school and new-school medical knowledge, but that is what your oncologists are forcing you to do.

Take another hard look at Alan Cantwell's presentations at the LAX conference. You are being given a choice, and those who are putting pressure on you to begin chemotherapy do not seem to have any concept of where you have been, or where you are capable of going.

..Trevor..

Members' experiences

-I was first diagnosed with Sarcoid in 1977, and like most of you have years of in and out of what seems like remission.  To cut a long stroy short, I finally had a double mastectomy in 2006, and both my breasts came back from the lab, yes, with sarcoid throughout.  It shows like a ca in my body. ~Debra

Last edited on Thu Jul 17th, 2008 04:45 by Foundation Staff

Last edited on Sun Dec 16th, 2007 04:24 by Foundation Staff

Last edited on Fri Jul 27th, 2007 19:43 by

Last edited on Sat Oct 4th, 2008 19:01 by Foundation Staff