很多DCIS都是病理学家瞎猜的，就跟扔硬币一样看心情 In 2006, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, an influential breast cancer survivors’ organization, released a startling study. It estimated that in 90,000 cases, women who receive a diagnosis of D.C.I.S. or invasive breast cancer either did not have the disease or their pathologist made another error that resulted in incorrect treatment. Dr. Ira J. Bleiweiss, chief of surgical pathology at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York, said that ideally, all breast cancer diagnoses would be referred for a second opinion. He warns patients and their doctors: “Don’t rush to the operating room.” That is just what Stacie Hintz did after a diagnosis of D.C.I.S. in Colorado Springs in 2004. After both her breasts were removed, she was told that her initial pathology — which found an aggressive type of D.C.I.S. — was incorrect. “Women with atypia and D.C.I.S. need to stop and realize it’s not the same thing as invasive cancer, and they have time to stop and reflect and think about it, and ask for a second opinion,” Dr. Elmore said. Because of the uncertainty, women whose results fall into the gray zone between normal and malignant — with diagnoses like “atypia” or “ductal carcinoma in situ” — should seek second opinions on their biopsies, researchers say. Misinterpretation can lead women to have surgery and other treatments they do not need, or to miss out on treatments they do need.
In 2006, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, an influential breast cancer survivors’ organization, released a startling study. It estimated that in 90,000 cases, women who receive a diagnosis of D.C.I.S. or invasive breast cancer either did not have the disease or their pathologist made another error that resulted in incorrect treatment. Dr. Ira J. Bleiweiss, chief of surgical pathology at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York, said that ideally, all breast cancer diagnoses would be referred for a second opinion. He warns patients and their doctors: “Don’t rush to the operating room.” That is just what Stacie Hintz did after a diagnosis of D.C.I.S. in Colorado Springs in 2004. After both her breasts were removed, she was told that her initial pathology — which found an aggressive type of D.C.I.S. — was incorrect.
“Women with atypia and D.C.I.S. need to stop and realize it’s not the same thing as invasive cancer, and they have time to stop and reflect and think about it, and ask for a second opinion,” Dr. Elmore said. Because of the uncertainty, women whose results fall into the gray zone between normal and malignant — with diagnoses like “atypia” or “ductal carcinoma in situ” — should seek second opinions on their biopsies, researchers say. Misinterpretation can lead women to have surgery and other treatments they do not need, or to miss out on treatments they do need.
另外 lz贴的是2006的结果 不算timely 病理学最近十五年也许改善了
如果看错了，打官司能赢吗？ 这也太惨了。
有的Pathologist怕病人告，一直都over call，尤其是甲状腺癌。
这个要有铁证证明那张slide医生看错了，而不是其他因素。这个挺难的。 这边有个女医生就是听了建议没做手术，后来转移了。打malpractice官司告医生医院，本来胜算挺大的，但没等到结案就去世了。可惜。 癌症这东西，还是不要随便赌没事。
天 这是谁？ 不会是老刀吧。
就像programming ，一个做，一个QC。 如果两个人都是认真干活的，错的概率很小。
老刀都得60了吧？ 去加拿大多少年前80万了
re
重塑不是这麽简单的，硅胶隔几年就得换一次，还有可能越来越硬，最后象石头一样。
不全切就得放疗，有些人不愿做放疗就选择全切了。
乳房本来就是个累赘，生过小孩后除了被男人摸一辈子，什么用也没有 所以生过孩子了就可以全部切了，这样一辈子保证不会得癌症
看了这个我有个疑问： 如果乳房全切了，的确是没有乳房再去生乳腺癌了，可是癌细胞的致病因素（假设是摄入的化学物质如塑料微粒，尘埃，等等）仍然在体内，那么癌症就在身体别处发生了吧？ 总之，本着能量守恒原理，不长在这里，就会长在那里。
我这个假设有没有道理？