Hi Yomaxx, I am sorry to hear of the pain you are suffering, and that you have not yet gotten a diagnosis of what the problem is precisely.
I can certainly understand that, with the bone pain, it could be myeloma. But when you say that 'there is a vice grip on your back and ribs and it is tightening around you', that in a way reminds me of the warning symptoms for heart problems. Angina could present as a feeling of tightening in the chest! Have you also been tested by your PCP for any heart issues?
I had similar problems with bone pain, having myeloma, and had to take pain meds and muscle relaxants to help with the spasms in my back for awhile.
Hope that helps!
Forums
-
Nancy Shamanna - Name: Nancy Shamanna
- Who do you know with myeloma?: Self and others too
- When were you/they diagnosed?: July 2009
Re: Does this look like myeloma?
Hi Nancy,
I just got around to reading your response. First and foremost, thank you for acknowledging my post and offering your insight
As far as this being heart related, I don't think so. I had my heart checked a few years ago and I was all clear. I do, however, also have an appointment with a cardiologist in order to cover all bases.
The bone pain is primarily in my ribs and back bones along with bone pain in my right chest bones. Bone pain is not all I have. My knees have been going numb along with my left back. I've been feeling extremely fatigued for quite some time. Just a slew of symptoms that I should not be feeling at 37 years old!
Tomorrow is my appointment with a hematologist, crossing my fingers he can figure out what is going on. As I tell my wife, there is definitely something not right. I just want them to find the problem and hopefully it's not too serious, and if it is ... I will have to deal with it. What other choice will I have
I just got around to reading your response. First and foremost, thank you for acknowledging my post and offering your insight
As far as this being heart related, I don't think so. I had my heart checked a few years ago and I was all clear. I do, however, also have an appointment with a cardiologist in order to cover all bases.
The bone pain is primarily in my ribs and back bones along with bone pain in my right chest bones. Bone pain is not all I have. My knees have been going numb along with my left back. I've been feeling extremely fatigued for quite some time. Just a slew of symptoms that I should not be feeling at 37 years old!
Tomorrow is my appointment with a hematologist, crossing my fingers he can figure out what is going on. As I tell my wife, there is definitely something not right. I just want them to find the problem and hopefully it's not too serious, and if it is ... I will have to deal with it. What other choice will I have
Re: Does this look like myeloma?
My Guess:
Pneumonia or perhaps a Pleurisy. Maybe a touch of Anemia ?? repeat Chest x-ray.
Depression ( Mild) ( Are you a Mets fan ??)
Positional neuropraxis --blood supply cut off by seat ( why your leg is going numb)
Albumin is good , calcium is okay, faint band can just be an infection and the body's response. Faint bands are really hard to call anything....usually they request clinical correlation (blood test).
So seeing your doc is good.
Good luck.
Pneumonia or perhaps a Pleurisy. Maybe a touch of Anemia ?? repeat Chest x-ray.
Depression ( Mild) ( Are you a Mets fan ??)
Positional neuropraxis --blood supply cut off by seat ( why your leg is going numb)
Albumin is good , calcium is okay, faint band can just be an infection and the body's response. Faint bands are really hard to call anything....usually they request clinical correlation (blood test).
So seeing your doc is good.
Good luck.
-
Rneb
Re: Does this look like myeloma?
bond007 wrote:
The above statement may be true if you're looking at fluctuations in your serum calcium levels and want to make sure they are "real", as opposed to changes in albumin levels. However, I don't think the statement is really relevant when it comes to figuring out whether someone meets the diagnostic criteria for myeloma – which was one of the main purposes of the discussion here.
The reason I say this is that, as far as I can tell, the "C" in the CRAB criteria for diagnosing multiple myeloma are not calcium levels corrected for albumin levels. The "C" criterion in the new diagnostic criteria is described as
"Hypercalcaemia: serum calcium >0·25 mmol/L (>1 mg/dL) higher than the upper limit of normal or >2·75 mmol/L (>11 mg/dL)"
It does not say that the "corrected serum calcium level"; just "serum calcium".
This was also the case in the previous iteration of the IMWG diagnostic criteria; see this table. Again, it just says
"Hypercalcemia: serum calcium ≥ 11.5 mg/100 ml".
There's nothing about "corrected serum calcium level."
I realize it's possible that "corrected" may be implied in the criteria, but somehow I doubt it. The criteria get rather detailed, so I don't think this is just a "lazy" omission.
A calcium level without knowing the serum albumin level has no real value, as the total calcium level will fluctuate with the albumin level and it is the free ionized calcium that is active.
The above statement may be true if you're looking at fluctuations in your serum calcium levels and want to make sure they are "real", as opposed to changes in albumin levels. However, I don't think the statement is really relevant when it comes to figuring out whether someone meets the diagnostic criteria for myeloma – which was one of the main purposes of the discussion here.
The reason I say this is that, as far as I can tell, the "C" in the CRAB criteria for diagnosing multiple myeloma are not calcium levels corrected for albumin levels. The "C" criterion in the new diagnostic criteria is described as
"Hypercalcaemia: serum calcium >0·25 mmol/L (>1 mg/dL) higher than the upper limit of normal or >2·75 mmol/L (>11 mg/dL)"
It does not say that the "corrected serum calcium level"; just "serum calcium".
This was also the case in the previous iteration of the IMWG diagnostic criteria; see this table. Again, it just says
"Hypercalcemia: serum calcium ≥ 11.5 mg/100 ml".
There's nothing about "corrected serum calcium level."
I realize it's possible that "corrected" may be implied in the criteria, but somehow I doubt it. The criteria get rather detailed, so I don't think this is just a "lazy" omission.
14 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2