From yesterday:
#1: The phrase
"suspicious for" is not the same as "confirms." It is not definitive.
It is ambiguous. It means exactly what it sounds like it means — that
more information and analysis is required before any final conclusion
can be drawn. Cancer has not been ruled out, metastatic or otherwise.
Nor has it been conclusively diagnosed.
#2: The phrase
"disordered proliferative endometrium" is not uncommon in a D&C
pathology report, and could POSSIBLY, in and of itself, explain why I
was having the dysfunctional bleeding. In other words, this phrase does
not automatically mean "cancer." Even so, 99 percent of conventional gynecologists will recommend a hysterectomy if they see it.
#3: The word "focal" isn't as
good as the word "random." In other words, if the phrase had been "random
atypical cell infiltration" instead of "focal atypical cell
infiltration," that would have been less "cancer'ish."
And here is the rest:
* This line in the report: "disappearance of lesional cells on deeper levels of histologic sections" means that "there were so few lesional cells, the pathologist couldn't do any of the other possible 7-10 tests that might have given more clarification." The fact that there were so few cells is a good thing.
* We do not understand how or why the pathologist came up with a suspicion of "metastatic" carcinoma (ie. cancer that came from some other primary source, either breast or gastric cancer), because the way the cells are described is not the way that breast cancer cells would look. What the pathologist is really saying, in order to cover her/his ass with sort of a "back-up" statement (to preclude being sued at any point), is
probably this: "The cells are not clearly uterine type cells." Beyond that, she simply does not know.
* This long complicated phrase: "...the EMC also shows focal atypical endometrial glands with hyperchromatic enlarged pleomorphic nuclei and cytoplasm with a somewhat squamoid metaplastic appearance, which show weak to moderate partial positivity for an immunohistochemical study for p53" -- is followed by the line: "The significance of this finding is unclear," which renders the whole string of gobbledygook rather useless, really.
* The next and final line of the report ends up making the possibility of "early serous carcinoma" seem less dominant than it seemed in the earlier path report, because the pathologist can't seem to figure out if it is serous or "reactive atypia in metaplastic glands," which would be less scary than serous. The other thing Renneker said was (I'm paraphrasing): "It's puzzling, as if they are saying they see two different cancer processes going on simultaneously. That is called a "collision tumor, ut it is extremely rare and unlikely."
So. That all said, where do I go from here? Good question, dear Reader. The answer is: It's a step-by-step process, each step affecting the direction of the next step.
I will let you know what my steps will be in my next post, because today is another work day for me even though it's Sunday. Hopefully it won't be a TOTAL work day, but definitely a few hours. Juggle juggle juggle.
There are also household considerations such as how to get rid of the fruit fly infestation in the kitchen, due to the fact that our new subletter is a "frugivore" who fills the pantry shelves with gigantic mounds of ripening fruit, many of them tropical. At the moment we are trying small bowls of balsamic vinegar to which we have added a couple of drops of liquid dishwasher detergent. Supposedly the little buggers will drown there.
Also are putting out piles of cardamom, which also, so says our subletter, will act as a repellent. She says she will buy more today, since we barely have any.
There is a whole long list, in order of easiest to most annoyingly complex, of ways to get rid of fruit flies.
Recent Comments