I finally went to the doctor several days ago for a very small hard node i felt above my collar bone, the dr examined it and said it was very small. I was very nervous since i have recently had extreme anxiety about lymphoma and HD, so i didnt ask all the questions i should have, I remember the doctor saying "well in a sense this could be very worrisome, and in another its not" About a month ago i experienced all over itching for about three days with no rash, i have no night sweats, i have been gaining weight rather than loosing it, no fevers that i know of, but am slightly more fatigued. I have always been a worrier and my anxiety is starting to drive me to tears. I dont know what to think of the fact that the dr immediately sent me in for a chest x-ray and blood tests whithout really telling me what shes looking for or when she will get back to me. Does this mean theres something shes not telling me. Is a chest x-ray standard practice for a irregular or swollen node? I dont know what to think, Im only 22. Could it be that my worst fears are coming true? Any advice to ease my mind until i hear from this dr would be greatly appreciated, thanks!

I finally went to the doctor several days ago for a very small hard node i felt above my collar bone, the dr examined it and said it was very small. I was very nervous since i have recently had extreme anxiety about lymphoma and HD, so i didnt ask all the questions i should have, I remember the doctor saying "well in a sense this could be very worrisome, and in another its not" About a month ago i experienced all over itching for about three days with no rash, i have no night sweats, i have been gaining weight rather than loosing it, no fevers that i know of, but am slightly more fatigued. I have always been a worrier and my anxiety is starting to drive me to tears. I dont know what to think of the fact that the dr immediately sent me in for a chest x-ray and blood tests whithout really telling me what shes looking for or when she will get back to me. Does this mean theres something shes not telling me. Is a chest x-ray standard practice for a irregular or swollen node? I dont know what to think, Im only 22. Could it be that my worst fears are coming true? Any advice to ease my mind until i hear from this dr would be greatly appreciated, thanks!
IF you live in the U.S. the doctor is practicing "cover yourself" medicine. If you have good insurance or good money they are making a living. If you live in Canada or another place where socialized medicine is practiced. The doctor may be genuinely unsure as to what this is. Please do not spend too much time worrying about this. The radiation from the xray is more dangerous than the lymph node. However, the itching thing is definitely not to be worried about. The itching phenomenon slowly develops over time, is a factor that is caused by antibodies trying to produce against a cancer, and would not go away after three days. It would start out slowly, here and there and then gradually develop over time but during this time other symptoms would also start to develop as well. Remember, most people have cancer up to 17 years prior to its symptoms being noticed. Not every one has every symptom that is talked about in any cancer some people have terminal cancer at deaths door, and do not have altered blood test results or anything except a little indigestion or fatigue and that is because, the treatments that are being used now days, Slash/burn/and drug do more harm to the body than most cancers do. I am not against treatment because sometimes it is necessary. More often than not, the treatment is worse than the SYMPTOMS of the disease. I know this is debatable and I am up for a discussion.

Marimac - Hummm, very interesting. My dad died of lung cancer and he never went to a doctor - hated doctors, from the old school. He had broken a rib and they found it then. He lived ten days but it was a rough ten days.

My late husband died of Hodgkins 15 yrs ago. He had treatments for six years. At that time, the standard was chemo, he was stage 3/4. Upon his death, the doctor said he should have only lived two years, we were an effective team but I wish I knew then what I know now about cancer treatments. I feel he was over treated which killed any chance of a bone marrow transplant.

In part, I do agree with you, the treatments are worse than the disease. But how do you live knowing you have the disease and not be treated for it?

17 years -- is that scientific or just a guess? Did you research? Very interesting as I wonder how long my Dad had lung cancer before being diagnosed. He was a very heavy smoker. I can't guess how long my late husband had Hodgkins before the diagnosis - it may have been awhile. He was the type that fell asleep on the sofa but he was a carpenter and worked hard so we never really chalked it up to anything but normal tiredness - I often wonder.

What a scary post, that freaked me out and definately didnt make me feel any better! I am so sorry for your hardships Nanci2439 no one person should have to experience such loss in one lifetime, you must be very strong. If anyone else reads my post i would like to hear of some stories of encouragement if any, that this is not necessarily the worst case senario, as i am still waiting for test results and trying to stay posotive. Thanks.

hi, just to let you know that not all scenarios are bad. esspecially when it comes to hodgkins. i've read more happy endings than bad endings with this type of cancer. don't have any personal experience with it but apparantly, it is one of the easiest cancers to treat.

hi, just to let you know that not all scenarios are bad. esspecially when it comes to hodgkins. i've read more happy endings than bad endings with this type of cancer. don't have any personal experience with it but apparantly, it is one of the easiest cancers to treat.

so sorry, didn't mean to stress anyone out - one note, my dad and late hubby had their cancers over 15 years ago - times have changed!

I personally know five people with lymphomas and all are alive and well! One guy was diagnosed over 20 yrs ago, another over 10 years ago, a good friend who was stage four and pregnant just sent her 18 year old son off to college, he was the baby she was pregnant with.

There are more success stories than doom stories, trust me. I am working with a girl, just 35 years old who is undergoing her last chemo treatment this week for breast cancer - she's upbeat and other than being tired, she's fine.

So, don't look upon my personal situation as a benchmark - cancer is treatable and most times curable if detected in early stages and even in later stages, as my friend was - she's living proof that even a stage four cancer is curable!

Remember, most people have cancer up to 17 years prior to its symptoms being noticed. Not every one has every symptom that is talked about in any cancer some people have terminal cancer at deaths door, and do not have altered blood test results or anything except a little indigestion or fatigue and that is because, the treatments that are being used now days, Slash/burn/and drug do more harm to the body than most cancers do. I am not against treatment because sometimes it is necessary. More often than not, the treatment is worse than the SYMPTOMS of the disease. I know this is debatable and I am up for a discussion.

Maybe this is not the place to discuss it, but I'm just curious. Where did you hear about this very strange theory that "most people have cancer up to 17 years prior to its symptoms being noticed"? I never heard of anything like that, and I don't see any sense in it either. I believe it is unethical to proclaim such scientifically unproven theories as this one in this forum.

As for the cancer treatments, sometimes they are but sometimes they are not. Nowadays many of the chemo and radiation side effects can be managed. Without these treatments, millions of lives could not be saved or at least prolonged. I do agree though that neither radiotherapy nor chemotherapy are the "ideal" treatments for cancer or any disease, due to their potentially hazardous long-term and short-term effects. But that's currently what we have to live with, on the other hand we always hope as the future cancer treatments continue to improve, better and better clinically-proven treatments will be available. In lymphoma in particular, the conventional treatments actually have (in comparison to other cancers) relatively excellent curative rates of most subtypes of this disease.

I don't think this is the right forum to discuss this any further, anyhow. Just wanted to voice my brief opinion.

My brother's oncologist told us that specifically lung cancer can exist up to 17 years before being discovered by modern medical tools such as Pet Scans, MRI's and Xray. We each have cancer cells that can and do form in our bodies. Our immune systems successfully out number these cells and destroy them usually. However, specifically cigarette smoking can weaken the immune system as well as other bad habits such as eating poor nutritionally, stress, and repetitive behaviors that attack our body's immune systems. The 17 year figure is the one that was arrived at by oncology research. This does not mean that some one can not get cancer within a space of 3 months and pass away. Treatment is a very individual choice and it is important that the person deciding to treat the cancer have a desire to fight the cancer, its effects and the side effects of the treatments. I just thought that it was an interesting piece of information that we DO have some control over how our bodies respond to cancer and that the knee jerk response for treatment does not always improve the quality of life. I believe that I was trying ineptly to say that quality of life, is sometimes preferrable to quantity of years and that is a very individual choice.

May I remind you this is not the lung cancer forum. So I don't think any theory related to lung cancer belongs here nor is relevant towards other cancers which are entirely different.

But briefly in general:
I may not be as proficient as an oncologist or other experienced doctor, yet I had read about similiar hypothesis, not specifically the 17 years one. I did know, even in seemingly healthy persons malignant processes may occur. The fact such processes exist in my opinion does NOT mean the associated disease has established. As far as I know, normally, one's immune system has anti-tumor features, which can filter and eliminate these processes before the actual disease develops and grows out of control. Cancer does seem to develop particularly in people whose immune system does not function properly in addition to various triggers as the ones you also mentioned, moreover chemicals, radiation, possibly viruses, foreign and
unknown agents.

The possible side effects of the current cancer treatments are well known. The prognosis and quality of life definitely play an important role in the decision making. I have no doubt these subjects are discussed with every patient individually prior to the treatment given.