Dear Emily:
 
>She discussed my little girl's history with another vet, and they think
>that if she does have the operation, she might have more problems after
>it.  They think that the hormones from the Adrenal tumor are counteracting
>the cause of the Mast cell tumors and preventing any other tumors, so if
>we do have the surgery, she might end up with a whole bunch of mast cell
>tumors.  And the vet said that since she's been doing fine thus far
>(except for the bladder infections), no surgery would be the best thing.
>Now, I probably messed up/misunderstood some of the above info, but the
>basic idea was surgery =3D more tumors.
 
I'd like to hear the theoretical basis for their reticence to operate.
There is no current data that mast cells are anything other than
spontaneous neoplasms, and they have not been linked to hormonal
imbalances in any species.
 
Honestly, mast cell tumors are benign tumors - if they pop up, they can be
removed as necessary.  This is far better than having the possibility of
an adrenal malignancy that, if untreated, can be life-threatening.  It is
likely that the hyperestrogenism caused by the adrenal tumors is resulting
in the bladder infections, which may also become life threatening if they
ascend to the kidney.
 
Me, I'd opt for the adrenal surgery, and take my chances with mast cell
tumors.
 
With kindest regards,
Bruce Williams, dVM
[Posted in FML issue 3280]