“So as I understand your message, the cross sectional area ranges from 7 cm2 to 10 cm2, depending on view. Diameter is 3.5 cm. Length? Located in ventricle or atrium?”
I just received the following reply:
“Yes, located in ventricle.”
So we apparently now have confirmation that the tumor is smaller than first reported, and is located in the left ventricle as opposed to the left atrium as was first reported. I’m still glad I rejected the imperative of immediate admission to the hospital for open heart surgery last week. The data still seems to be subject to fluctuation and we really do need a steady-state understanding of this before getting out the knives.
I try to be as respectful as possible toward the medical community even when I’ve lost all confidence. Because I always try to “toe the line”, it’s sometimes easier to read me by what I do or don’t do rather than by what I say or don’t say. But every once in a while I receive an email that’s just too good to not pass along. Here’s one I received this morning regarding the cardiologist changing the tumor sizing from 13 cm to 3.5 cm:
"I got so pissed when I read your blog post! So, it's 13, 3.5, or something with a 3 in it? Can this dipshit be a little more nonchalant? I've little confidence that that cardiologist has any idea what he's looking at. Enough cluelessness."
Yes, this was another reason why I started this blog. Wherever I end up, I'll need an historical roadmap to remember how I got there. You just can’t make this stuff up.
Okay, time to squeeze the Big Apple to see if any juice will trickle my way . . .
No comments:
Post a Comment