Hi PJH -  Yes I have a new expander and they admit it may cause some problems.    Overall they made radiation sound like a piece of cake, but as a previous breast cancer survivor I know that the long term and late term affects can often be the worse than the immediate side affects and they are not often talked about.  

Originally the oncologist and surgeon both said no radiation if I do the mastectomy.  The Radiologist said they probably just didn't really think much about it at the time and now that the Radiologist has reviewed my file, she is convince I should do it, however, there really is no new information except -   I  had 2 positive nodes after chemo which they suspected prior but thought the chemo would have wiped them out and that the path reports were not conclusive about the original size of the tumor.  This was the first time I hear about this.  Doing chemo prior to surgery is new, so they don't have many stats on this process.  As a result, I feel like they are guessing. The Radiologist said she had not reviewed my file until recently and therefore was not part of this original decision that said no radiation.   She apologized for the mis-understanding, but that was of little comfort to me at this point.     I am 52 and since I had breast cancer originally at 32 with Mastectomy and Chemo and now again (new cancer - not a re-occurance) that say they want to "throw the book at me" just to be sure it doesn't come back.  The Radiologist suggested that while the Path reports all indicated that it was less than 5cm (MRI, Pet and Ultra Sound), stage 2, that there was some language in the Path report suggests some uncertaintly about the exact size of the tumor and that it might have been larger than 5cm.  Is it true that both tests could be wrong?  She also suggested at one point in our meeting, that it might have been a stage 3, but then said I am not saying it is/was a stage 3 though but initially we thought perhaps it was.  How confusing is this?  Overall I felt like they just were not sure and walked away more confused than when I walked in. Both my husband and I specifically asked the Radiologist about the stats of re-occurance and she only reference some large study that was done indicating overall that women that did radiation had fewer re-occurances and a better survivial rate.  She admitted that the percent was low but that I should not gamble with my life.  BTW my cancer is Lobular and Triple Negative, which I understand is more rare and less is known about it, so I beleive that may play a role in some of this uncertainty.  She said that Radiation is a customary form of treatment, everyone is doing it and basically did not understand my hesitation.  She said that any local re-occurance opens up the chance of the cancer spreading to other parts of my body and that it is not a chance I should take.   She also recommended genetic testing which I will be doing.

Thanks for your the suggestion and for listening, I do think I will ask for the absolute stats.  Asking and seeking a second medical opinion seems exhausting at this point so I am a not sure if I will do that.  Thanks so much - nettie  

Thanks PJ - I agree a second opinion is in order.  I have been following your site for a few months now and reading comments from you and others and have found this site to be one of the best overall in helping people digest information, share experiences and yes, perhaps vent a bit. Thanks!  Nettie