Histology report 'errors'

Are these errors though? They might be, on the other hand a lot of surgeons insert the guide wire after you’re asleep - mine did. Also if they found IBC and DCIS they could well have been mixed together as mine was, so of course they’re much more concerned with the bits of IBC than the DCIS around it - both will have been removed. Once they’d removed the initial tumour and/or areas of concerned they often do a cavity shave. If that came back positive you’d have been invited in for more surgery or, as in my case, a mastectomy. But I think it would be a really good idea to have an appointment with a doctor or BCN to go through your notes ASD explain everything 

Hi Lalalou

I think Anabrock is correct when she lays out a plausable course of events which could result in your confusion with respect to what is what with respect to your BC. I also think you need to have a discussion about your concerns with someone from your care team to hopefully put your mind at rest.

Wishing you peace of mind.

WallyDug

Thanks Anabrock and WallyDug. With regards to a guide wire, I thought that this was only necessary if the tumour is small? In my case the pre-surgery MRI showed that the IDC was known to be 37mm - and possibly up to 41mm - but the histology report records the pre-surgery clinical details as 26mm. The histology report states that 4 margins were not clear, then further down states that 3 are clear but the margins are referred to differently, and neither the IDC or DCIS has been fully removed. The post surgery letter refers to just one margin requiring re-excision. I had a lengthy chat with an oncologist last week who was able to provide some new information but commented that knowing how many margins require re-excision is a fundamental point so the histology report is going to be reviewed - by both the surgeon and pathology - and then a meeting with the surgeon is going to be arranged to discuss future treatment plans. I have also requested copies of other reports/notes via the BCN as it is a bit concerning to read that most of the samples are referred to as "labelled with patient details" but two are referred to as "labelled with correct patient details"....

I have had 6 months of chemo so far and been told that the only further surgery required is a cavity shave and possible node clearance. If a mastectomy is now required then that will impact on my return to work and pay so it would have been helpful if this had all been sorted out months ago, when I first raised concerns about the discrepancies. Incidentlally, I have never met or spoken to the surgeon who conducted my surgery, and received no feedback when I came out of theatre, I was just told by a nurse that everything had gone OK. Hopefully it will all become clear following the review.

Does sound as if there has been a mix up. I used to work with patient records, back in prehistory, and we had cases where patients of similar names were mixed up. Also I have a disabled son - there is another boy with exactly the same name, same birth month only 2 years older. We’ve been accidentally sent not only his medical appointments, letters etc but also reports from social services! So I always check the date of birth for any official information. But for you, sounds like they’re having a multi-disciplinary team meeting about your case, which is the gold standard for decisions on complex cases and should give you some clarity. Good luck and let us know how it goes 

It wouldn't hurt to check the contents of your report. Not the same, but I recently needed a gyne appointment and when she asked about my cancer and  I started talking about my breast cancer the consultant realised that at the front of my files was someone else's paperwork. It doesn't do any harm to discuss it and get the information sorted out.

I agree that it's definitely worth checking your results/reports, and I've now received some more reports which make things even more confusing. My tumour measured 26mm on an initial mammogram, and that is the measurement that is recorded in the 'clinical details' section of the histology report. The pre-surgery MRI recorded a known size of 37mm but the size of the tumour removed was only 32mm - no wonder the margins aren't clear! There are some other discrepancies within the documents but I checked and they all have my hospital number on and I don't have a particularly common name. Still awaiting the MDT review so it will be interesting to hear their findings. 

I feel you! The other day I was told my notes said I’m a heavy drinker with cirrhosis of the liver! They also said I had a heart condition. Neither fact was true and quite upset me, even though they believed me when I said it was wrong