question about my dad\'s followup visit

Well, Pat, it looks like at least the Japanese are paying attentin to the correlation
of arthritis and BCG treatments...maybe things are looking up!

Thanks for your research,
Ro

Ro..here's a bunch of reports on reactive arthritis after BCG instillation..check out the boxes to the right also for those papers. We need to catch to local docs up on their reading
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14655604?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=2&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed
As for the BCG i know it starts immediately but i think what i meant to say is it continues to work up to 6 months....but i can't find the paper in all my research. Its probably by Lamm...maybe i'll just ask him.
Pat

As far as an answer to what you are looking for, I think that Warren has hit the nail on the head. How can the Doctor know what he is looking at?? Wait for the biopsy, then you will know...

As far as the question about it taking 6 months for BCG to take effect, I actually don't think that is so. BCG takes effect as soon as it hits the bladder. I am not a researcher, but, I have talked to various Doctors about the effects of BCG, and my GP seems to think that within 6 months the BCG would be out of my system and therefore should no longer be an indication as to my arthritis. Talk to the different Doctors about BCG and you get lots of different theories and ideas. The truth is that no one really knows why or wherefore of BCG, it seems to just be the best shot in the dark, with the best outcomes.

BCG "failure" is the window of time during the treatments when there is recurrence.

That is a horse of a different color.

So, this white fuzzy place did not appear DURING treatment, and your Dad went a full year without his alleged recurrence?

Best of luck
Ro

The million dollar question. You will get many and varied answers on that.
Personally I was showing microscopic blood in my urine 3 yrs before i had gross hematura which then got my attention. Actually it had my attention when it was first mentioned to me by my OB/GYN but my internist pooh poohed it and i was not vigilant about it.....bladder cancer ..huh?..never entered my mind. 3 yrs later and lots of blood my tumor was quite small but growing out of CIS. So i have to think it was in there for at least 3 yrs before my body decided to yell at me to pay attention.
Pat

thank you for your reply. my thoughts are that the white spot is a tumor at the very, very early stage, it has not had a chance to grow and form much. my dad's tumor from last year was about the size of his thumb tip so it was already there for awhile. my dad thinks at least a year. there was nothing there in july so this spot is very new and caught early. my dad was fine after last year and since this white spot is smaller and has not been there long he will be fine, it will be "nipped in the bud" so to speak. i guess i just need some reassurance. my dad stays on top of things and treats this as a chronic condition that can be taken care of. i wish i could feel like he does. he does not worry, he says that if there is something found it is found early and it can be taken care of and managed. i am just a big worrier. thanks again.
claudia

p.s. are there any guidelines out there that indicate how long a tumor is in a person before it shows signs or how long it has been there based on the size? can they be there for years and years before causing symptoms? i have wondered but have never seen info out there.

Doctors sometimes use vague medically inaccurate descriptions to reassure patients, but in the end it leads to more confusion, so it drives me nuts. The bottom line is that if something was removed the biopsy result will tell you what it is. Make sure he discusses the biopsy results with your or your dad.