Interpreting Your Report
Comments
-
The unfavorable terms always take precedence. Irregular hypoechoic mass + internal linear calcification paints a picture of IDC with DCIS. Fibroadenomas can calcify but they have smooth borders, are not usually hypoechoic and their calcifications are large, looking like popcorn on mammo.
If and when this bx comes back positive, they will likely want an MRI followed by a surgical consult. Let us know how it goes.
0 -
Okay, will do. But I should prepare myself for not great results?
0 -
Yes.
0 -
hey djmammo- sorry to be a pest. Just wanted to update and ask if this affects your reading. I had (what I assume to be) this lump but at least a lump biopsied 7 years ago - same spot pretty much (old report says 5:00-6:00, 1 cm from nipple, approximately 2 cm, hypoechoic and "no well defined borders") this new report says 5:00, 2.2 cm, hypoechoic, irregular borders. Radiologist (different than one who did first lump)says he thinks they're two different lumps but they seem awfully similar. Findings of that biopsy we're fibrocystic changes and ductal hyperplasia.
I'm aware the linear calcifications are a pretty good indicator of DCIS but any chance with that previous report it's possible there is just DCIS on an old lump? I have had a mass in this spot since I was 15, as noted on biopsies...just hard for me to think this is somehow an entirely new mass almost identical to an old benign one.
Thanks for any advice.
0 -
This is the purpose of inserting a biopsy marker each time a biopsy is done. If this had been biopsied before with a benign result and a marker inserted there would be no question as to whether this was old or new. Is there a marker present?
There is also an advantage to reporting all of the history upfront when the case is presented. Omitting the fact that this might have been there before and biopsied with a benign result is "burying the lead".
Keep us posted.
0 -
Per the 2012 biopsy report the marker did not take after two tries so there is no marker. I so wish there were!
I didn't realize until I found the old report last night how truly similar the "two" lumps are. New radiologist made them sound radically different but the old report had so many similarities once I read it that they seem more similar than not. Biopsy is now tomorrow, will update.
0 -
Hello DJMammo. I have Spiculated strands of tissue in my right breast. I had been cancer free for 11 yrs. Also have new califications too. Do u have any experience with this? Do u think this could be cancer? I'm seeing my breast surgeon Feb 20th to get schedule for a mammogram and other testing. They found it in a CTA Scan recently.
0 -
CT does not have the resolution necessary to make a specific diagnosis of breast cancer. You will have to wait for the mammo/ultrasound to really know anything. Was your prior surgery in this breast? It might be scarring from prior surg. Post the reports of your mammo and US when available.
0 -
Hello djmammo. Thank you for getting back to me. Yes my surgery was in the right beast. Yes i do have scarring too. Yes i will post my mammogram when i get it. Wed i see my dr to get that scheduled. Hopefully i won't have to wait long.
0 -
8/8/18
Not palatable
Scattered fibroglandular tissue
Persistent 4 mm nodule or cyst with internal septation/internal debirs 10 o'clock upper outer
corresponds to mammogram findingsBI-RADS III
Density Category B
Scattered Fibroglandular Densities that could obscure lesions
Hypoechoic area with echogenic center
2/13/19
Palatable
Dx mammogram and ultra sound on right breast.
5 mm hypoechoic 'possible' nodule/lymph node
BI-RADS II use regular yearly mammogram schedule
Images show mass to be more 'filled' than previously and the edges are not clear, smooth, or oval/round. When looking at cysts at online radiologist sites, mine does not seem to 'match' up to theirs (the first set nor this second set). My dx imaging was done at a 'Family Care Center' with a radiologist that views all of the incoming issues such as broken bones etc i.e. not a breast specialty clinic.I am just confused as to how it was downgraded when it clearly has changed over time.
Thoughts and/or insights?
0 -
New to the board and looking for some clarification on a recent screening mammo. Going for follow up mammo and ultrasound next week. I am 49 years old and this is my 6th mammo. Any clues appreciated, google doesn't offer much... thank you!
Comparison is made to exam dated: 7/25/2017
Tomosynthesis and 2D imaging of the breast(s) were performed.
The tissue of both breasts is heterogeneously dense. This may lower the sensitivity of mammography.
There is a stable oval mass in the upper, inner right breast, posterior depth.
There is a focal asymmetry in the left breast superior region axillary tail seen on the mediolateral oblique view only.
No other significant masses or calcifications are seen in either breast.
Current study was also evaluated with a computer aided detection (CAD) system.
IMPRESSION: INCOMPLETE: NEEDS ADDITIONAL IMAGING EVALUATION
The focal asymmetry in the left breast superior region axillary tail seen on the mediolateral oblique view only is indeterminate. Additional views with possible ultrasound are recommended.
Due to the heterogeneously dense parenchyma, screening breast ultrasound is recommended.0 -
Hey everyone I am new to this group and trying to get my head around some of these reports. Nothing was found on my mammogram but as my doctor could clearly palpatethe lump he recommended an ultrasound. This is what the report from the ultrasound said
Ill-defined nonparallel hypoechoic mass lesion with microlobulated contour seen at the mid upper quadrant of the left breast, 11/12 o'clock location, corresponding to the palpable lump. No vascularity by colour flow imaging. posterior shadowing. It measures 6.8 x 4.6 x 4.4 mm.
Recommendation: Ultrasound-guided core biopsy. Prior contrast-enhanced MRI should be considered for better assessment.
Can't anybody help explain what this means while I wait for my biopsy.
0 -
My mother was just diagnosed with stage I breast cancer a few weeks ago. We have a strong family history so I went for my mammo last week and the test results were possible distortion as well as mass identified posterior third and medial in my left breast. Back in 2017 I had another mammo that indicated There are no dominate masses , suspicions microcalcifications or unexplained architectural distortion to suggest malignancy, that was benign. I am waiting to schedule the ultrasound today but just worried about this finding. Can someone put my mind at ease with the new findings?
0 -
Hi, and welcome to the newbies!
In addition to the help djmammo can provide, you may be interested in checking out the main Breastcancer.org site's page on What Mammograms Show: Calcifications, Cysts, Fibroadenomas, where you can learn more on the benign results that can come from testing.
We hope this helps, and good luck!
The Mods
0 -
8/8/18
Not palatable
*** I assume that means "not palpable"
Persistent 4 mm nodule or cyst with internal septation/internal debris
***If that is a true septation, then its a pretty good sign that its a cyst
Hypoechoic area with echogenic center
*** "Area" is too vague. If they said mass or nodule with echogenic center one would think lymph node.
2/13/19
Palatable
*** Is it palpable now? Is that new?
5 mm hypoechoic 'possible' nodule/lymph node
*** too vague
BI-RADS II use regular yearly mammogram schedule
When looking at cysts at online radiologist sites, mine does not seem to 'match' up to theirs (the first set nor this second set).
*** Do all cysts look alike?
My dx imaging was done at a 'Family Care Center' with a radiologist that views all of the incoming issues such as broken bones etc i.e. not a breast specialty clinic.I am just confused as to how it was downgraded when it clearly has changed over time.
*** Have the images reviewed by a breast radiologist
Thoughts and/or insights?
*** Related: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9240666
0 -
Vonnie look at djmammo's original post on this thread (top of page) and you will see some of the terminology that's on your report. The terms they use have some negative/suspicious features.... so that's why they want a biopsy. Biopsy is a definitive way to know if it is a malignancy or not.
0 -
There is a finding that has been there before that they are not worried about.
There is something they apparently feels is new that they want to follow up on but they provide no details to make a comment on what it is. It might be nothing since it is only seen in one view. The next mammo and US will tell you more.
0 -
Djmammo, I wonder if you can answer a question for me. I had a bone scan that showed an area of activity on my right hip, so I have an upcoming MRI. Will an MRI of the hip also include other areas, such as the entire pelvis and/or lower back area?
0 -
Djmammo:
I have been on Anastrozole for approximately four months. Before that, Tamoxifen for 6 months. Yesterday, I had an ultrasound as a regular follow up check for a past liver adenoma that was removed in 2016 which was benign. My Gastroenterologist likes to order abdominal ultrasounds to monitor the liver on a regular basis as well as liver blood tests-LFT and AFP just in case. I am grateful for the watchful eye. My BC diagnosis was one year later after the benign liver adenoma removal.
*****Report EXAM:*****
ULTRASOUND ABDOMEN
INDICATION: Liver neoplasm
COMPARISON: June 6, 2018
TECHNIQUE: Multiplanar gray-scale images of the abdomen were performed.
FINDINGS:
PANCREAS: Visualized portions of the pancreas are normal.
AORTA: 2.0 cm proximal, 1.8 cm mid, 1.8 cm distal in size.
IVC: Normal.
LIVER: Measures 12.7 cm in size. Normal echogenicity. No focal mass. No intrahepatic ductal enlargement.
GALLBLADDER: No gallstones. Several polyps, largest measuring 2 mm.
Gallbladder wall thickness 1 mm in size. No pericholecystic fluid. No sonographic Murphy's sign.
COMMON BILE DUCT: 2 mm in size.
RIGHT KIDNEY: Measures 10.9 x 4.2 x 3.7 cm in size. Normal echogenicity. No focal mass. No hydronephrosis. No nephrolithiasis.
LEFT KIDNEY: Measures 10.1 x 3.9 x 4.7 cm in size. Normal echogenicity. No focal mass. No hydronephrosis. No nephrolithiasis.
SPLEEN: Measures 8.1 cm in size. No focal mass. ASCITES: None.
URINARY BLADDER: Normal.
IMPRESSION: Several gallbladder polyps measuring up to 2 mm.
*****My last cholesterol check was in 2017 and normal:
Cholesterol 165; HDL 77; LDL 76; Chol/HDL Ratio 2.1; Triglycerides 58*****
(This was before my BC diagnosis, though.I did not get a new cholesterol check last year, so no idea what the levels are currently.)
Just wondering if there is a connection between Anastrozole and gallbladder polyps? I'm worried also if the polyps could be a recurrence of cancer spreading now? How common or uncommon are gallbladder polyps?
Really worried now and not opposed to getting the gallbladder removed. (What is it like to have a gallbladder removed? How is the lifestyle change? If it's not that big of a change, I may consider just removing it to get peace of mind. Too much other BC stuff to worry about.)
Thanks in advance.:)
0 -
Djmammo - Thank you for your time.
8/8/18
Not palatable *** I assume that means "not palpable"
*** Yes, palpable is correct. Spell check and hand held device with small keyboard.
Persistent 4 mm nodule or cyst with internal septation/internal debris
***If that is a true septation, then its a pretty good sign that its a cyst
***** Unsure of what a 'true septation' is but I am guessing they were referring to a small line jutting from one side of the mass. It did not go completely across the growth to the other side.
Hypoechoic area with echogenic center
*** "Area" is too vague. If they said mass or nodule with echogenic center one would think lymph node.
****** One 'image' on the disc said mass/nodule but was not included on the paper report.
2/13/19
Palatable
*** Is it palpable now? Is that new?
***** Yes again. Spell check. And yes, this is new. It became palpable in the last few weeks. The 'feeding vessel' is new as well. This was not present in the original imaging. The colors are also greater and cover a larger area.
5 mm hypoechoic 'possible' nodule/lymph node
*** too vague
****** I was thinking that was so in that my report does not seem to have the detail that most others I have been reading on this forum.
BI-RADS II use regular yearly mammogram schedule
***** Not sure why it changed from BiRads III to II when it grew and the images show change as well.
When looking at cysts at online radiologist sites, mine does not seem to 'match' up to theirs (the first set nor this second set).
*** Do all cysts look alike?
***** No. Trying to gather information that seems to be lacking in the report.
My dx imaging was done at a 'Family Care Center' with a radiologist that views all of the incoming issues such as broken bones etc i.e. not a breast specialty clinic.I am just confused as to how it was downgraded when it clearly has changed over time.
*** Have the images reviewed by a breast radiologist
******* Will have to get a referral to one and a near by city. None in our area.
Thoughts and/or insights?
*** Related: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9240666
0 -
Thank you.
0 -
djmammo
Thank you for the clarity. I have my MRI next Monday and meet my doctor Monday week. I have not told my family about what’s going on as I don’t want to worry them. Should I include them now? What is the likelihood of malignancy in my case with aBIRAD 4?
0 -
Vonnie75 I saw your other post that said it was BIRADS4C. That means it is more likely to be malignant than benign. If it would make you feel better to tell them, I would. But you can wait until you get the results. At your biopsy ask them more specific questions about the lump or if there are calcifications etc. Maybe you can get a better idea as to what type of cancer they think it is. BIRADS 5 is when they know it is cancer but just need the biopsy to confirm it, and BIRADS 6 is malignancy proven by the biopsy. So they must feel quite alarmed. I remember when I was in your shoes and it was the worst part of this entire ordeal. Use this time to prepare your mind for various outcomes. It will get easier when you have more information vs. all of this uncertainty.
0 -
djmammo, they have ordered a hip MRI.
Also, just wondering, does it matter that the report also says "no definite additional foci"? Does this mean they're not entirely sure there's no additional foci?
0 -
Okay, thanks. What other areas can be seen in an MRI of the hip?
0
