Hi Moniguen, I assume that you're referring to the study that I mentioned questioning whether second and later breast cancer are in fact recurrences (of the same origin) or unrelated events. I'll try to find the study and, if I do, post the name and author(s). I read it during a whirlwind of trying to learn whatever I could upon being surprised to be diagnosed with breast cancer. It was a surprise as the only incidence in my family of ant cancer was father's prostate. [Interestingly, my oncologist thinks that prostate cancer being in my nuclear family, while not breast cancer of a female, might be of interest as both are hormone-sensitive. That's just his musing after treating cancer breast cancer patients for nearly 30 years.]
As to the study, the oncologist who headed seems to be rethinking how and if breast cancer can metastasize in a distant part of the body years after its first appearance. Cancer is a quixotic enemy. One woman I read about on a Mayo Connect thread had cancers in both breasts, with one being estrogen positive and the other estrogen negative. I don't recall if they were concurrent though.
For what it's worth, I found learning as much as I could, as soon as I got the diagnosis, enabled me to get better use of the doctors' appointment times. They didn't have to go over the very basics and terminology and such. That was a big help and we got right to post-surgical treatment plan. I relied on the OncotypeDX risk profile and am glad that we had that extra data in hand.and hope every woman facing this challenge gets that extra data.
Thank you for posting and don't underestimate good news when it has just as much chance of being true. The diagnostic technology is great but not perfect and our bodies have all kinds of odd things that self-resolve or were 'artifacts' generated by the tech equipment that aren't seen again.

Hi Monigue, if you're referring to the oncologist who posits that a second breast cancer (which is a kind of cancer and can be discovered outside of breast tissue) might not be a recurrence in a true sense, but an independent event, I'll try to find it again. When I came upon it, I was in the shock of having breast cancer and preparing for surgery and recurrence was the last thing on my mind. I didn't realize until later that it his is an interesting speculation ....he seemed to be questioning the process by which breast cancer can later occur in a different area of the body years later without somehow spreading to that area but the spread theory wouldn't account for the time lag. As I say, when I read it, my focus was on the immediate present so I read it half forgot about it. It's probably a moot point for anyone but research scientists as no matter how cancer shows up, the only thing we can do is deal with it and hope to not have it again.