Oct 4, 2021 02:25PM
Thank you to all of the posters here, this forum has been so helpful for me as I've been navigating all my testing. I had my first screening mammogram ever in September (I'm 48, no family history of BC, and just left it too long, I know), and was referred for a follow up diagnostic mammogram and ultrasound because of architectural distortion in one breast. Diagnostic mammogram / ultrasound confirmed the architectural distortion, with possibility of associated lesion. I had a biopsy on Friday, 10/1, and the pathology report was uploaded to the patient portal on 10/2 showing a benign result, with what appear to me to be some pretty typical findings for a perimenopausal woman (everything relevant is copied below) - my PCP added a note that based upon the results, all looked well to her and I didn't have anything to worry about. However, this morning the radiologist added an addendum with her conclusion that the results were discordant, and I should proceed with a surgical excision.
I'm meeting to discuss my results with a breast surgeon in two weeks, but I can't for the life of me understand why I wouldn't just monitor based on the findings. The nurse I spoke with acted like I was nuts for considering this. I'm wondering if anyone has had a similar result and elected not to proceed with a surgical excision? In the interests of full disclosure, I got a really bad vibe from the radiologist (her affect can probably best be described as funereal, and to top it off she offered to pray for me, which really put me off), and I have a borderline phobia regarding medical treatment, so it is entirely possible I'm being irrational. I'd appreciate a gut check?
Here are the results:
Conclusion from diagnostic mammogram (written up by different radiologist than the one who did the biopsy):
Persistent area of architectural distortion in the outer anterior right breast. While there is a vague 4 mm hypoechoic area in the right breast at 11 o'clock, 3 cm from the nipple, it is uncertain if this represents a true lesion or a pseudolesion
interposed between the patient's dense hyperechoic breast tissue. This architectural distortion remains indeterminate. Tomosynthesis guided right breast biopsy is recommended to exclude malignancy. If there is no evidence of malignancy upon biopsy,
the sonographic following could then be reassessed in 6 months with a limited right breast ultrasound.
Additional probably benign ovoid masses are noted in the right breast at 9 o'clock, 4 cm from the and 9 o'clock, 2 cm from the nipple. These masses can be reassessed in 6 months on the limited right breast ultrasound recommended above.
These findings and recommendations were discussed with the patient in person at the time of the examination.
Right breast, lateral; core biopsy:
- Fibrocystic changes consisting of usual ductal hyperplasia, sclerosing adenosis, apocrine metaplasia, and microcyst formation.
- Microcalcifications present.
- No glandular atypia or malignancy identified.
Log in to post a reply