I am assuming RM being a very large institution (similar to one that I am familiar with here in USA) is that the decisions are made by more than one doctor. I remember Jessica Krock who has one doctor say no way for surgery and another say yes to the surgery...both at Mayo. In retrospect that surgery gave her piece of mind but they found no more cancer so maybe the first one was right.You are correct and I am not judging her current medical team. If they offered surgery, I am pretty sure Tiffany would agree. What I wondered was in case surgery wasn't YET on the table with her team AND she wanted it removed or a second opinion about removal vs. just wait for the next scans, THEN she should get a second opinion. If she, or any patient anywhere, feels she isn't getting timely treatment, Tiffany is well-poised financially to get a second opinion about surgery vs. waiting for future scan results.
What I mean is that different oncologists might have different opinions and levels of experience that affect the treatment decisions they make on patients. My post wasn't meant to say that private was better. I don't know if she could get a second opinion for free within the NHS system, which is why I mentioned private oncologists.
Remember her initial cancer diagnosis was different at the first hospital. The first hospital had said that the FIRST lung nodule (and, presumably, the only one she had at diagnosis) was a metastasis and that she had Stage 4 cancer. Then, she switched to the Royal Marsden, which said that the lung nodule was benign and that she was at Stage 3, although there was one doctor during one appointment who said she was at Stage 4. Remember that Tiffany had blurted out in the parking lot at that time "Stage 3 or Stage 4, it doesn't matter!" and that she was visibly upset that one doctor had said Stage 4 at the RM.
As it turned out, her first lung nodule was cancerous, and thus the diagnosis from the first hospital was correct from the onset. For this very reason, I would be wary of an 'all-clear' by the RM on the lung nodule. I would probably go back to that first hospital, make an appointment, and have them look at the scan of her second nodule to see what they say.
That is concerning, actually, in Tiffany's first diagnosis by the RM: The implication is therefore that multiple doctors at the RM thought that the first lung nodule was not cancerous and talk of lung surgery or treatment was absent until the nodule was over 1 cm in diameter. The sooner a growth is removed, the better the prognosis, at least giving the patient more time to live.I am assuming RM being a very large institution (similar to one that I am familiar with here in USA) is that the decisions are made by more than one doctor. ...
Thanks Saydee I learn a lot from your detailed explanations. What you say makes a lot of sense. Cancer cells can spread through blood vessels or lymph vessels. So if a new tumor appears in a new “distant” (from the original cancer) area then it means cancer cells have spread through blood or lymph vessels and one tumor seen on a scan MIGHT mean there are many cancer cells that escaped the chemo process meant to kill them so they are spreading but haven’t yet multiplied enough in any one location to be seen on scans as tumors.A lung nodule wouldn't cause breathlessness. When nodules turn into large tumours they can put pressure on the airways which causes a dry cough and breathlessness.
The one nodule (if cancer and that's an if) wont cause no harm remaining in situ. Spread doesn't occur from spread. Spread all occurs from the primary. I posted a paper on the evolution of metastatic spread in recent posts which showed spread patterns and how scientists tracked and mapped spread.
If they are suspicious of that node then T won't be moved to 6 monthly scans, she will remain on 3 monthly scans.
Why wouldn't they rush to offer surgery? Because surgery wouldn't be extending life. If the nodule was already on her previous scan back in march?
If a nodule was growing and remained 'stable' with no further spread appearing, surgery can and would be considered.
Am I making sense
She didn't want to hear that it was cancerous. She happily accepted RMs diagnosis. All along she's been the ostrich with its head in the sandThat is concerning, actually, in Tiffany's first diagnosis by the RM: The implication is therefore that multiple doctors at the RM thought that the first lung nodule was not cancerous and talk of lung surgery or treatment was absent until the nodule was over 1 cm in diameter. The sooner a growth is removed, the better the prognosis, at least giving the patient more time to live.
Tiffany has a history of seemingly muddled or outright incorrect diagnoses. First of all, she was diagnosed with cancer very late, already with a T4bN1b colorectal cancer tumor that had already grown into her vagina! Why this diagnosis was revealed rather late while Tiffany had apparently been bleeding for over a year is unclear. Even a simple gynecological exam would have detected growth of a tumor into her vagina! Did she even bother to have such an exam? Was she relying solely on colonoscopies and avoiding a gynecological exam? Who knows, because she wasn't clear about that.
Tiffany also never revealed the diagnosis involving her previous stomach surgeries. On this matter, Tiffany is clearly hiding something intentionally.
Then, there was the St. George's hospital diagnosis of a Stage 4 adenocarcinoma colorectal cancer with 1 lung metastasis. Her case was then handled by the Royal Marsden because of their state-of-the-art colon surgeries with robotic assistance (the DaVinci robot). The RM gave her a stage 3 diagnosis and said the lung nodule was nothing to worry about, even though it turned out to be cancerous less than a year (approximately) after her pelvic exenteration surgery.
Well, how about if that first lung nodule had been removed when it was half the size? If it was cancerous at 1.1 cm in diameter, it was cancerous at the 5 to 7mm diameter mark as well upon initial diagnosis.
THIS is why second opinions matter and are important! If two different hospitals, both with good reputations, gave completely different conclusions about an initial lung nodule, a THIRD medical opinion could have served as the tie-breaker, so to speak. After all, this IS a question of life and death.
_______________________________________________________
Tiffany's case, easier than a 3rd opinion at the time of diagnosis:
Why didn't she RETURN to ST. George's hospital for a REBUTTAL on their part? She could have told them that the RM said her (first) lung nodule wasn't cancerous! Whoop whoop whoop! So, armed with the RM's result, WHY didn't she return to St.. George's and ask them WHY they said the first lung nodule was cancerous?
There IS a right and wrong answer here. One was right, the other was wrong. The best situation would have been if one of the hospitals had admitted an oversight or a mistake. That way, at least Tiffany would have been aware of HOW such decisions are made, and the possibility for ERROR, in case...guess what...it happens again...such as with a SECOND lung nodule now!!
Second opinions to a hospital of the patients choice is free for all cancer patients on the NHS. All they have to do is ask their oncologist for a referral to lets say the Christie, or St James's etc. The oncologist then logs into their system and a referral is made.You are correct and I am not judging her current medical team. If they offered surgery, I am pretty sure Tiffany would agree. What I wondered was in case surgery wasn't YET on the table with her team AND she wanted it removed or a second opinion about removal vs. just wait for the next scans, THEN she should get a second opinion. If she, or any patient anywhere, feels she isn't getting timely treatment, Tiffany is well-poised financially to get a second opinion about surgery vs. waiting for future scan results.
What I mean is that different oncologists might have different opinions and levels of experience that affect the treatment decisions they make on patients. My post wasn't meant to say that private was better. I don't know if she could get a second opinion for free within the NHS system, which is why I mentioned private oncologists.
Remember her initial cancer diagnosis was different at the first hospital. The first hospital had said that the FIRST lung nodule (and, presumably, the only one she had at diagnosis) was a metastasis and that she had Stage 4 cancer. Then, she switched to the Royal Marsden, which said that the lung nodule was benign and that she was at Stage 3, although there was one doctor during one appointment who said she was at Stage 4. Remember that Tiffany had blurted out in the parking lot at that time "Stage 3 or Stage 4, it doesn't matter!" and that she was visibly upset that one doctor had said Stage 4 at the RM.
As it turned out, her first lung nodule was cancerous, and thus the diagnosis from the first hospital was correct from the onset. For this very reason, I would be wary of an 'all-clear' by the RM on the lung nodule. I would probably go back to that first hospital, make an appointment, and have them look at the scan of her second nodule to see what they say.
Yes, debulking surgery is often done here in the UK and on the NHS if the tumour is causing a problem such as impacting an organ or causing an obstruction. The bulk of the tumor is removed as a 'palliative treatment'. Many with brain mets have the bulk of tumors surgically removed. Radiotherapy or similar is then used to attack the part of the tumor left behind.Thanks Saydee I learn a lot from your detailed explanations. What you say makes a lot of sense. Cancer cells can spread through blood vessels or lymph vessels. So if a new tumor appears in a new “distant” (from the original cancer) area then it means cancer cells have spread through blood or lymph vessels and one tumor seen on a scan MIGHT mean there are many cancer cells that escaped the chemo process meant to kill them so they are spreading but haven’t yet multiplied enough in any one location to be seen on scans as tumors.
There is a saying in the US about someone fruitlessly trying to eliminate something that can’t be eliminated - people say someone doing that is “playing whack a mole.” Years ago there was an arcade video game called “Whac a Mole.”
I have heard of surgery to remove distant mets being done to reduce the side effects of the mets - rather than from trying to cure the cancer. In the US it’s called “debulking surgery.”
In T's case I would have pushed for chemo or a targeted inhibitor after surgery. I would even consider trials.I do wonder if her oncologist offered her another round of chemotherapy or a targeted drug after the lung nodule was removed and the pathology came back showing it was cancerous. I can imagine a doctor telling a patient that the pathology report for the module indicates cancer cells have spread in her body, but also that with only one tumor showing up it didn’t appear to be a fast growing cancer so the patient could go either way given the effects of treatment on quality of life.
She clickbaited MY LIVER?? for the first time about two years ago and it was investigated. She dragged it out for months and peopleIn T's case I would have pushed for chemo or a targeted inhibitor after surgery. I would even consider trials.
Although you are right. Quality of life is always taken into consideration too.
After T's vanishing 6mm liver lesion I am very skeptical of what Tiff says.
Be it her buddy, her abdominal bulge, her liver nodule or her new found lung nodule, our girl is gathering quite some baggage to heave around on holidays with her!I predict that Tiffany will be blocking out information about her second diagnosed lung nodule. She doesn't want people mentioning it. She will say 'It's OK' even if it isn't. She will balk at further chemotherapy, and continue thinking the nodule is fine, as the 'watch and wait' approach is by default for the next two to three months until the next scan unless she becomes PROACTIVE in her SITUATION. She will insist that she is fine and feeling well, so, of course she can't possibly have cancer, right? Nevermind that she was breathless ON VACATION in Italy and unable to climb stairs properly with Matt in a park somewhere. Nevermind that her eyes seem even more sunken in than in the past.
Sorry, but I predict that she has one year of functionally relatively good health, and that she will either be operated on again or have to have some treatment before the end of this year for that nodule. In her next scans, which may even be as soon as two months from now if this is a new nodule, that nodule will have grown, and perhaps there may even be others.
She needs to be aggressive about her SITUATION now: Ask for removal of that nodule instead of 'watch and wait' for two to three months. Ask about treatment and clinical trials. Make an appointment with another doctor in the private sector to get a second opinion. Will she do any of this? I predict that she won't! Well, Tiffany, don't say you weren't warned!
Also, Tiffany removed ALL comments about MARRIAGE to MATT and Catholicism that were under this or the last video. I guess those comments really hit a nerve with her!
As an otherwise healthy woman under 35 I alsothink treatment or a trial would have been a wise choice - especially since she has people who can support her financially for however long she might be unable to work.In T's case I would have pushed for chemo or a targeted inhibitor after surgery. I would even consider trials.
Although you are right. Quality of life is always taken into consideration too.
After T's vanishing 6mm liver lesion I am very skeptical of what Tiff says.
Well yeah the whole point of scans every 3 months is when patients are on active 'surveillance'. Surely those results will have been read before T arrived at the clinic. I personally know St James's in Leeds have morning oncologist meetings where all cases are discussed amongst clinic oncologists, plans are put into place. Clinic then opens at 9:30am, patients arrive and results are given. Bear in mind that the 'team' of oncologists have already discussed results prior to seeing patients that day.I saw this on the TS channel.
I used to see this lady spit truth on other channels, like MK and I think SU2C. She is legit.
View attachment 3017124
Exactly @ liver. Yet none of her loyal subscribers question where the hell that 6mm liver lesion went?She clickbaited MY LIVER?? for the first time about two years ago and it was investigated. She dragged it out for months and people
kept asking her about it. Basically the same situation as now. She then said that they found nothing wrong and that it was an inflammation.
Then she came up with the liver again a year ago along with the lung, the two important organs. She was telling us that there was never anything
wrong with the liver, that this was the first time, completely forgetting her first liver situation. A detailed scan of the liver was done. She
was then ecstatically asking Amma and Matt if they were happy cause the liver was not confirmed as cancer.
This whole journey is batshit crazy.
No, liver lesions and nodules, masses or cysts are never ‘usually’ called inflammation. Liver inflammation is called hepatitis. Sometimes a parasite can cause the hepatitis (inflammation) and possibly cause a cyst or lesion, but noFanny does NOT have that.Well yeah the whole point of scans every 3 months is when patients are on active 'surveillance'. Surely those results will have been read before T arrived at the clinic. I personally know St James's in Leeds have morning oncologist meetings where all cases are discussed amongst clinic oncologists, plans are put into place. Clinic then opens at 9:30am, patients arrive and results are given. Bear in mind that the 'team' of oncologists have already discussed results prior to seeing patients that day.
It's sad that she blocks anyone that asks anything. Don't ask questions, just leave blue hearts peeps. And buy some merch after leaving childish blue hearts.
---
Exactly @ liver. Yet none of her loyal subscribers question where the hell that 6mm liver lesion went?
I have never heard inflammation referred to as a lesion? Liver cyst or fatty tissue yes, but not inflammation. Anyone else?
It's so funny when you UK people start saying it's hot and it's still under 30. It was 27 today here where I am in Aus and it's Winter.It's hot today ladies and gents.
Remember to drink your water
Tiffany won't be replying, her and Matt will be busy watching Love Island.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?