I just found this forum today; please bear with me if I make newbie mistakes. I am a 57 year old male with a very strong familial history of colon cancer. I still have a 16 year old kid at home. My sister tested positive for Lynch Syndrome, and, though the results of my test are still unknown, the assumption is that I have Lynch as well.
Because of my family history I have been having colonoscopies about every four years since I was 30. My colonoscopy last month found two precancerous polyps, and one flat, cancerous one in my transverse colon. The margins can not be determined to be cancer free.
My gastroenterologist told me I needed a total colectomy and sent me to a surgeon. The surgeon said I only need a partial colectomy, removing about 60% of my colon, from the small intestines to past when the cancerous polyp was found. That sounded better to me, but I went for another opinion.
The next surgeon said it was up to me, and presented me with pros and cons of the total versus partial colectomies: basically, quality of life versus chances of cancer recurring. He said that either option was defendable- neither was a crazy choice.
I have read some horror stories from total colectomy survivors- ten or more bm's a day, all diarrhea, urgency issues, painful or burning bm's- none if it pleasant. Many who have had the partial colectomy report almost normal bathroom habits, by comparison.
I am waiting for the results of the Lynch test: if it is negative ( which is extremely doubtful ) I will do the partial. But, assuming it is positive, I am looking for input from people who have had a colectomy- which way would you go if you were in my shoes? I understand the decision is mine, but I'd like to hear what you think.
So... Total or partial colectomy?
Thank you very much