Benign?

[NPCincy]

Hello all: A few weeks ago, I was diagnosed with a "heterogeneous right intratesticular mass, 2.9 x 2.5 x 2.9 cm." I was told there was probably about a 97% chance that it was malignant and two docs recommended an orchiectomy. My blood work came back with normal tumor markers and my CT scans were clean. I had the orchiectomy at Sloan Kettering a little over a week ago.

I had my followup appt today with the surgeon, who got the pathology reports back. In layman's terms, he told me that they were uncertain if the mass was benign or, if it wasn't benign, it was at the lowest possible end of the spectrum of being malignant. He recommended surveilance only, every two months for a year or two. I was expecting the surveilance to consist of a periodic chest x-ray and a CT scan, but I was surprised that he recommended only the x-ray. Obviously, this was all fantastic news. In my relief, though, I failed to ask some questions... so I'm here.

Does any of that "maybe benign, maybe a 'little' malignant" make sense to anyone? Was this just my doctor's way of saying it looked benign but we have to be sure so they'll monitor me? And if it was benign, does that mean I fell into that 2-3% of people? And this is a silly question, but I'll ask it anyway...can I properly even tell people I had testicular cancer, if it wasn't malignant? Know what I mean?

This is definitely a successs story and I'm feeling very, very relieved and happy, but also a little confused as well.

Thanks to everyone who posts here - you've all been very helpful these past few weeks.

All the best, Nick.

[djmac]

Hello all: A few weeks ago, I was diagnosed with a "heterogeneous right intratesticular mass, 2.9 x 2.5 x 2.9 cm." I was told there was probably about a 97% chance that it was malignant and two docs recommended an orchiectomy. My blood work came back with normal tumor markers and my CT scans were clean. I had the orchiectomy at Sloan Kettering a little over a week ago.

I had my followup appt today with the surgeon, who got the pathology reports back. In layman's terms, he told me that they were uncertain if the mass was benign or, if it wasn't benign, it was at the lowest possible end of the spectrum of being malignant. He recommended surveilance only, every two months for a year or two. I was expecting the surveilance to consist of a periodic chest x-ray and a CT scan, but I was surprised that he recommended only the x-ray. Obviously, this was all fantastic news. In my relief, though, I failed to ask some questions... so I'm here.

Does any of that "maybe benign, maybe a 'little' malignant" make sense to anyone? Was this just my doctor's way of saying it looked benign but we have to be sure so they'll monitor me? And if it was benign, does that mean I fell into that 2-3% of people? And this is a silly question, but I'll ask it anyway...can I properly even tell people I had testicular cancer, if it wasn't malignant? Know what I mean?

This is definitely a successs story and I'm feeling very, very relieved and happy, but also a little confused as well.

Thanks to everyone who posts here - you've all been very helpful these past few weeks.

All the best, Nick.

Maybe TC doesn't stick to guys named Nick? Just a thought.

Seriously, it sounds like great news and since its coming from MSKCC I would be pretty confident. Still, I would ask for spcecifics. Specifically, how did they classify the tumour? Maybe it's an adenomatoid tumor of the testis like the other Nick had, and they see some mysterious cells, or maybe it's a Leydig cell tumor, which are generally benign and do not usually metastasize, but show a really poor prognosis if they do (to the point where a year is usually plenty of follow up). I would be cautiously celebrating, but definitely let us know what the exact pathology is!

djm

"Nick is a name. Nick is your buddy he's your pal. The kind of guy you can drink beer with; the kind of guy who doesn't mind if you puke in his car."

[Fish]

Hi Nick and welcome to the forums.

The pathologists at Sloan should be able to give you a definitive answer as to what cell types you tumor contained. Do you have a copy of the pathology report? Perhaps they mean it was teratoma, with varying levels of differentiatlon. But, I've never heard anything described as you say your doc relayed it to you. I think you deserve a more detailed answer. That being said, surveillance is still a reasonable choice regardless of what cell types were present. Your surveillence should also include tumor markers. Check out http://www.nccn.org/professionals/ph...guidelines.asp and look up testicular cancer for detailed treatment/followup recommendations.

best wishes!

[oscar666]

hi

Hi Nick,
Indeed, fantastic news that you are in 2-3% benign group.
It is possible!
If you are not satisfied of doctor’s explanation, you could ask a copy of your pathology report, or even a second, independent pathology.
Then, check the meaning of the words and ask some TC specialist to explain.
If you are OK with the medical things you know so far, don’t destroy the magic of “false alert” happiness, don’t ask anymore. The doctors there should be pretty accurate with their findings and suggestions.
We could comment your pathology if you publish it here, but we are just TC survivors, not TC doctors.
Regarding the “one-ball” hints, you are welcome.
Usually, living with one testicle is nothing different; of course the remaining one is more precious.
Some people do prosthesis, but I don’t think that is important at all.

So
Follow your tests and ....most important:
Enjoy your life!

[NPCincy]

Perhaps they mean it was teratoma, with varying levels of differentiatlon.

Thanks fish - those are exactly the words he used. I guess I still didn't quite grasp it though. I will definitely get a copy of my pathology report just so I'm a little more educated on it exactly.

Thanks again to everyone. This really is a great site for support.

[Scott]

can I properly even tell people I had testicular cancer, if it wasn't malignant? Know what I mean?

You're welcome in our club, Nick!