Great question! Actually, a fortuitous question, where we have actual textual medical evidence from the era that you're interested in. But before I get too much into this, let me offer my standard disclaimers when talking about pre-modern medicine. Ancients had a fundamentally different nosology than we do -- that is, they had different ways of classifying and understanding disease. To make things even more confusing, we moderns have co-opted many ancient names for disease and put them on a modern nosology that involves our complex understandings of, say, microbiology and cellular mechanics. A great example of this would be tuberculosis -- the modern name -- or consumption. By the nineteenth century, even before the discovery of germ theory, it was generally understood that consumption (from phthisis in the Greek) was a systemic disease of inflammation and formulation of caseating (so called cheesy) granulomas, that generally entered the body in the lungs, and had a variable (though often fatal) course. Even without the understanding of microbes, this is still approaching the disease from the same episteme that we do today.
But phthisis is an ancient word, and shows up throughout history, including to the Greeks, Romans, and ancient Hebrews (schachepeth, which used to be translated as consumption, but now is the general "wasting disease"). But though the disease has the same name, phthisis to the Greeks meant something different, and would have fallen into a variety of wasting disease INCLUDING metastatic cancer (and likely a number of other bacterial and fungal infections). However, in their nosology, these would have been a single disease, and treated similarly. I used to work in a low-resource setting in Botswana, so I have some sympathy for these ancient doctors. TB is highly endemic there with the high prevalence of HIV/AIDS, but still, it could be very difficult initially to tell the difference between, say, TB sepsis, and certain types of metastatic cancer initially (though I still had far more resources than the ancients, and an x-ray or a bedside ultrasound goes a long way).
Disclaimer #2 -- there's some reason to believe that disease incidence, especially of cancer was considerably different in the past. The obvious reason being that people died younger of infectious disease, but there's also paleopathological evidence (CONTROVERSIAL evidence) that suggests that many types of cancers were legitimately less common in the past. I don't want to get into this TOO much.
Disclaimer #3 -- there is a lot of lay confusion about the word "tumor". Tumor to most people today means cancer. That's not the medical definition, though I don't know that doctors have helped the situation much. The actual definition is just "swelling" which is still the case today, and many references to "tumor" in medical history clearly do not refer to cancer, despite people claiming otherwise. To make things even more confusing, up until the last few decades, tumor followed the definition by Celsus, and would have referred to ANY swelling, even inflammatory swelling (so an abscess was a tumor).
That was a super-long disclaimer, so let me now answer your question by talking about the Edwin Smith Papyrus. This is a surgical and gynecological document dating from about 1600 BCE in Egypt (though probably copied from much earlier, usually dated 3000 BCE), and it's a fascinating view into the sophisticated medical care of this period. The National Library of Medicine actually has an amazing visualization of the scroll that you can play around with (https://ceb.nlm.nih.gov/proj/ttp/flash/smith/smith.html). This papyrus is so important because, unlike other medical documents from this period, it shows a mostly NATURALISTIC view of human disease -- that is, disease is caused by natural, and not supernatural, causes (though it still has several magical spells in it). Other medical papyri (take, for example, the Ebers papyrus) show a far more mixed picture of disease, both natural and supernatural.
So let's discuss Case 45. I unfortunately don't have my more modern translation in front of me at the moment, so I'm using the one from the link above. It discusses a patient with a "ball-like tumor" of the breast. The patient comes with a complaint of a breast mass, and the tumor of the chest is "very cold, with no warmth in it, and your hands find they have no granularity, and they do not make water or create drops of water but are ball-like to your hand," "like a ball of bandages, similar to a fresh fenugreek pod". This is a tremendous description of carcinoma of the breast; I shiver thinking back to the first cases of breast cancer I diagnosed, feeling a cool, granular lump in the breast.
But what do these doctors suggest the treatment is?
"It is nothing" (or from my preferred translation, "there is nothing to be done.")
They recognize that breast cancer cannot be treated.
The Ebers Papyrus, which is from the same period, and is the longest ancient Egyptian medical document that we have, also briefly touches on what seems to be cancer (though the details are far more spotty, and I'm not confident ). In regards to a "tumor against the god Xenus," it too recommends that there is nothing that can be done.
That was a lot, but to directly answer your question -- you're a woman in the New Kingdom era, and you have metastatic cancer -- and let's use metastatic breast cancer, since that appears to be a disease category that an Egyptian physician-priest would have understood. They would have recognized that your presentation carried an incredibly poor prognosis, and would not have offered you medical treatment. In particular, they would not have attempted any of the lancing or salves that they would use to treat other tumors.
Now, for the OTHER manifestations of metastatic cancer (let's, say, you became jaundiced from metastases to your liver), these physician-priests would not have recognized this as a manifestation as cancer per se, and very well may have treated you for this -- but this is getting well beyond my expertise.
I hope that helps, and I didn't just make the discussion more confusing! Ancient medicine is often presented in a far more straight-forward way than it really way -- their conception of disease is just so fundamentally strange to moderns, and it doesn't help that we basically stole all their terminology and re-applied it to modern conditions.