The Facebook time machine reminds me that today marks ten years since I defended my dissertation and (more or less) officially became a PhD in Rhetoric and Composition. My husband likes to call me a “doctor of words,” but more accurately, I am a teacher and scholar of the way writing is used to make things happen. Of everything I learned in my education, what helps me the most in the real world is not my writing skills but my research skills. Not only am I adept at finding research, but I know how to read it, analyze it, critique it, and corroborate it.
Of course, like everyone else, I will scour the internet for hours looking for an answer to a question, especially if it’s related to my health or the health of a loved one, but I fortunately also have access through university libraries to research databases filled with medical journals that provide me with information well above and beyond Webmd. Unfortunately, this also means that my research can take me down a whole lot of extra rabbit holes, even if they might be more credible. In the BRCA+ community, we like to opine that “knowledge is power“: that’s supposed to be the gift of genetic testing, right? You know about your mutation, and now you can do something about it. But although I have often written that the knowledge of my BRCA mutation has saved my life, I’m done with claiming that the knowledge has empowered me – instead, I’m realizing that it has had power over me, just as the idea of breast cancer has for most of my life.
Since I found this lump last week, I have done hours and hours of research, beginning by meticulously analyzing my pathology report from 2013 while simultaneously teaching myself how to understand pathology reports. Just like that year, my mutation has taken over my life, and I am spending all of my spare time reading research studies and typing up notes on them, trying to predict what the ultrasound/biopsy will show.
So, here’s what I know about the DCIS in my right breast, which was removed (along with my left breast) in January 2013:
- It was high grade, nuclear grade 3: this means it “has a high mitotic rate is more likely to come back (recur) after it is removed with surgery” (American Cancer Society).
- Evidence of comedo-necrosis: this means there were lots of dead cells in there, showing that the cancerous cells are fast-growing.
- Tumor was present in 7 of 15 slides: there are a few ways to measure how much DCIS is present. Mine was measured by noting “the number of microscopic slides that contain DCIS…The larger the area of DCIS, the more likely it is to come back (recur) after surgery” (American Cancer Society). I’m a bit stumped on this one because I don’t know if the slides represent the entire breast (whole breast divided into 15 slides, so tumor present in more than half of breast), or if the slides only represent the part(s) of the breast where tumor(s) was found (tumor area(s) divided into 15 slides). This protocol seems to suggest the latter; however, if these tumors can only be seen microscopically, it stands to reason that they’d need to look at all of the breast tissue to find each tumor. Yet, in my memory of preparing microscope slides in high school biology class, I don’t see any way that all of my breast tissue could possibly fit on only 15 slides.
- Negative surgical margins: this is good because “If DCIS is touching the ink (called positive margins), it can mean that some DCIS cells were left behind” (American Cancer Society).
- It was Estrogen Receptor (ER) and Progesterone Receptor (PR) Positive: knowing this can help predict response to hormone therapy if necessary; “Women with hormone receptor-positive cancers tend to have a better outlook in the short-term, but these cancers can sometimes come back many years after treatment.” (American Cancer Society).
- Sentinel lymph node removed from under my right arm was negative for tumor; this means that the cancerous cells had not spread to other parts of my body.
Once I understood everything I could about my DCIS, I went to work doing research on chances of recurrence or new cancers after DCIS with these features – after all, what I’m trying to figure out (since there’s no way I can wait until the results of Wednesday’s test, which probably won’t come back until Friday at the earliest), is what the fuck is this lump.
I found a few articles that definitely have me scared. For instance, this teaching piece describes a case study similar to mine (although I am more than six years out from my original surgery, and this woman was only one year out). Here’s what worries me:
The recurrence of breast cancer after mastectomy for DCIS is uncommon, but for women who do relapse with invasive disease, the mortality rate is high.[2] While there is ongoing debate regarding the overtreatment of DCIS, there are factors associated with an increased risk of locoregional recurrence even after mastectomy; these include young age (< 40–45 years), close/positive margins (≤ 2 mm), and large multifocal disease.[3] In addition, a tumor grade of 3 has a small but significant negative impact on relapse rates, suggesting the need to optimize therapy in these patients.[4]
What concerns me here is that of the factors listed associated with increased risk of recurrence even after mastectomy, I have three of the four. Obviously, the “mortality rate is high” part is a bit disconcerting as well.
This study has me even more scared, to be honest. While it discusses women who had lumpectomies to remove DCIS (rather than mastectomies), it is nonetheless a bit frightening:
Among 190 patients with grade III, the 10-year recurrence rate was 35% with margins <1 mm, increasing to 70% for patients with closer margins.
So, for women who had DCIS like mine – grade III and clear margins – 35% had a recurrence within 10 years. Thirty-five percent is not an insignificant number. I am surprised that my surgeon did not tell me this – in fact, no one told me any of this. No one said, “Look, you had the mastectomy; we removed the DCIS. But you should know that your type of DCIS, while not invasive, was pretty much the worst kind — like, any minute it was about to become invasive cancer. And research shows that there is a pretty decent risk of recurrence with this kind of DCIS.” Instead, I was given the standard BRCA mutation post-mastectomy line:
“Because even the most experienced breast surgeon cannot remove all breast tissue, a small risk of developing breast cancer remains after prophylactic mastectomy….mastectomy surgery alone lowered the risk for breast cancer by about 90%” (FORCE).
I was told that my own risk was now lower than the general population of women. While I do believe that my risk of developing cancer was certainly lowered, I think it’s a stretch to say it was that low given the kind of DCIS I had.
Like I said at the onset, however, I am adept at critiquing and corroborating research, and there is no exception here. Doctors and scientists are doing research on DCIS in order to determine if it’s being over-treated: when does a woman need to have mastectomy when diagnosed with DCIS? This review of literature points to many of the challenges and biases in doing this kind of research, demonstrating that even the studies I’m citing above – those that have me most concerned – have problems in research design and reporting, and their results could easily be flawed.
Amidst this work, I received a call from the imaging center where I will have the ultrasound (and possible subsequent biopsy) on Wednesday. The call came while I was in the car with my husband and son on our way to our Niagara Falls vacation. I was driving; my son was in the backseat, headphones dutifully attached to his ears while watching movies on his iPad. Because my husband gets carsick, I could not ask him to take notes; instead, I did my best to commit what she said to memory, then voice-recorded them into a text message to myself: “Shower that morning (can’t shower the following day) and eat lunch beforehand; must wear bra; no deodorant; arrive at 1 for 1:30 appointment; keep taking meds.” That last part is important – I can keep taking my anti-inflammatory for my back pain, even on that day. So while I sit here and write this, and while I obsessively do my research instead of all of the things I probably should be doing on a daily basis, I’m not in agonizing pain.
One thing I should remember is that even though I do need to be my own advocate, I am not a medical doctor. All of my research and understanding of this comes from solitary late-night reading – I have no expert with whom to discuss this right now, and I do not have the years of medical training it would take to 100% understand all of it. And, while I am confident in my research skills, as a “doctor of words,” I know there’s nothing I can really do about any of this until the test results come back.