Hi There
I am not sure how to answer your question
what you are writing here sounds like the way a microsopic pathology report is written
that is not really important clinically. That is just a description of how something looks under the microscope. Pathologists tend to get very poetic with their description
all that is important from my standpoint from a biopsy report is: is it cancer or is it benign
take care
Thank you for your answer. I agree, there is poetry to be found in the pathology! ;-)
I think I did not make myself clear. We patients often run across the term "solid tumor" in scientific sources about ovarian cancer. We see statements like, "carboplatin has proved a feasible alternative to cisplatin for the treatment of many solid tumors," or "This phase I trial is studying how well bevacizumab works in treating patients with advanced solid tumors."
In discussions online and at my support group, I often hear people say, "My tumor wasn't solid, it was full of fluid," or "not solid, it burst," or "not solid, it's cells in my ascites." When I was diagnosed I assumed all tumors looked like baseballs. Or melons.
I think the doctors are talking about a broad way of classifying cancerous tumors, and one classification is "solid cancer." The patients are talking about appearance, and about the descriptive poetry, as you pointed out.
The important thing to me is that I've heard people take a logical leap and say, "I won't apply for this trial because it's for solid tumors and mine is a veil," or "I don't want to take this chemo, it's only for solid tumors and I have microscopic nodules."
It's a picky point that causes unnecessary distraction. But it can be dangerous.
So to rephrase the question: Is ovarian cancer classified as a solid tumor?