quote:

ORIGINAL: zephyroftheNorth

Path reports on the whole tend to be more accurate. I cannot say for sure of course but I would think that the path report is what will be used to treat you, that is usually the case.

ETA: with the path report showing invasive pre-cancer, the chances are good you will be sent for radiotherapy which is amazingly focused these days. Fewer chances of side effects because the radiation is so focused on the area they want to radiate. Good luck sweetie!

Zeph (who works for Oncologists)

quote:

Getting a second opinion is a good idea. Would I have to wait until my cervix healed enough first?

quote:

ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl

Getting a second opinion is a good idea. Would I have to wait until my cervix healed enough first? She took a very large chunk.

quote:

ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl

Yesterday I went to the hospital for a cold cone biopsy and possible hysterectomy depending on the lab result. When I woke up in the recovery room, my gynecologist said the lab report showed invasive cervical cancer so she couldn't do the hysterectomy. She said she had to refer me to a gynecologic oncologist for surgery and I might need radiation. Today my gynecologist called and told me she received the pathology report. According to the frozen pathology report, it's non invasive pre-cancer. So which is it? She is now giving me the choice of letting her do the hysterectomy or referring me to an oncologist for the hysterectomy. Which are more accurate, lab results or pathology reports?

quote:

ORIGINAL: windchymes

For the record here, "pathology" is part of "the lab", and the same laboratory pathology department does both biopsies and follow-up reports. The "frozen" section biopsy is done immediately by pathology as a "super stat", because it is done while the patient is under anesthesia and a decision on whether or not to remove the uterus, or the breast, or whatever organ is made based on those results. It's literally run to the lab pathology department, frozen quickly and processed so that the pathologist on duty can look at the slide under the microscope and give a preliminary diagnosis as soon as possible so that they can proceed with the surgery and the patient is under anesthesia for as short a time as possible. Then, another specimen is processed the "normal" way, which is slower and more meticulous, but still done and reported by the same laboratory pathology staff, as confirmation.

The usual protocol is that, if the organ in question was not immediately removed, then the diagnosis given by the lab/pathology at that time, during the surgery, was not one that the gynecologist felt warranted immediate removal.

That report and the final report were probably inconclusive enough that the gynecologist wants to refer the OP to an oncologist for follow-up, which isn't a bad idea. Also, I suspect the OP did not completely understand what the gyno told her, she may have been woozy from anesthesia and/or medication, the doctor's English may not have been easily understood, the doctor may not have good communication skills and talked way over her head, there's always the possibility that either the lab or the nursing staff mixed up the reports, there are several possibilities.

Also, the difference between one report saying "invasive" and the other saying "non-invasive" may have been how the doctor actually removed the piece of tissue that was tested.

Final answer, get a second opinion, ask a lot of questions, keep asking till you're satisfied that you understand, and take someone with you to the appointments so that two people hear what the doctors say.