|
Grace,
I am basing my comments on "breadloafing" on the discussion I had with the first of three radiation oncologists I interviewed, after my lumpectomy and before my re-excison SLNB. She told me that the standard for examination of the SLN was the thin slicing and staining. She explained how the technique was able to produce highly reliable pathological information. She left me with the impression that the thin slicing was SOP for SLNB; since only one node (or two) was removed, they look it over much more carefully, and are likely to find cancer cells that were overlooked when the nodes were sliced in half and visually inspected to determine positivity.
In the second lymph node article I posted, the authors reference a paper which found that "inflammation of the intestinal wall is characterized by higher perfusion parameters than normal tissue, but lower than neoplastic tissue," i.e., higher perfusion than normal but less than cancer, and try to relate that finding to the results of their own study. They theorize that "increased perfusion and permeability of inflamed tissue may be due to the effect of cytokines, that provokes vasodialation," i.e., that the inflammation causes the blood vessels in the tissue to expand, which causes an apparent increase in volume in the node. The purpose of the study on which the paper was written was to see if positive nodes could be identified by means of computer tomography measuring blood flow. They don't explain how the inflamed nodes got that way; they just described their findings in terms of measuring blood flow. Reading the description, it seems to parallel the "atypical hyperplasia" scenario in bc where the hyperplasia is a precancerous change. Angiogenisis was a topic covered in the lymph node paper; it seems the atypical tissue also develops atypical blood flow which could be a precurser to cancer cells growing. Just my interpretation, here, nothing else.
Hopeful
|