Topic: Interpreting Your Report

Aug 25, 2017 08:40PM djmammo wrote:

was this from a core biopsy or excision? Would help to see it in context but it means there is evidence that tumor cells have entered the lymphatics and blood vessels but it is only evident here and there in the specimen. Can you PM me the entire report?

Aug 25, 2017 11:04PM Jeah wrote:

I tried to contact you thru pm,

I got d result of my mammo

Findings: the breast are heterogeneously dense, which may obscure small masses

A lucent centered calcification is seen in the right periareolar area

No dominant mass, abnormal microcalcification, skin changes/ nipple tetraction seen

Assessment: heterogeneously dense, bilateral

Benign breast calcification, right

Aug 27, 2017 10:47PM Beatmon wrote:

Thank you for always being so helpful

Sep 2, 2017 08:02PM - edited Sep 2, 2017 08:04PM by Southernmess

Hi I'm so glad I found this. I'm having a hard time reading my ultrasound report. Please help. 1.impression:in the axilla there is a benign appearing old inflammatory node and within the breast proper there are 2 small cysts. 2.Benign finding Sonogram of thecomplete left breast: In the tail of the breast there is a 6.0x6.0x5.0mm well demarcated solid nodule with an echogenic center, 3o'clockthere is a 2.0x1.0x2.0cyst and at 11o'clock 4.0x4.0x2.0cyst. I don't understand what an old benign inflammatory node is.

Sep 7, 2017 03:43PM dressmaker wrote:

Left early stage breast cancer 2003 age 45. Had 3D mammo yesterday with a call from nurse today saying I needed to return for compression views and ultrasound of my right breast because of a density. Isn't a density a normal finding.?

Sep 7, 2017 07:57PM dressmaker wrote:

Thank you, I figured there was a word missing! Hopefully will turn out to be fine! It is great to see someone with knowledge here. Wish you had been here 14 years ago!

Sep 8, 2017 10:15AM djmammo wrote:

Dark13

See my response under PM's

Nov 4, 2017 08:38AM djmammo wrote:

Harms1975

Hello

The radiology report is the doctor to doctor communication of what is basically a medical consultation. It is not written for the patient, it is for your doctor and other radiologists. This is why a law was passed to send patients a lay letter in the mail with your findings. If your doctors did not explain the findings of your study to you, shame on them. Also unless you have had training in imaging there is no point in looking at the screen unless someone is pointing explaining to you what is on there and what all 512 shades of grey mean.

No vascularity means there are no blood vessels feeding it, thats a good sign.

Bilobed means it looks like an 8 on its side. The circles may or may not be attached. Neither good not bad sign.

They used the word "complex" which can be bad but some readers confuse it with "complicated" which is usually good. I assume thats what they meant since they did not suggest a biopsy but I cant be sure. Either way it is very small. On a practical note, no rad would recommend a 6 month follow up if they thought it was a cancer.

So that is an explanation of the portion of the report you shared above. Is there a report of the new study? Were the results explained to you before you left the imaging center? If not I would find another imaging center.

Nov 5, 2017 01:10AM - edited Nov 5, 2017 01:15AM by Ozarkgirl

Hello djmammo! This was from my ultrasound -- I'm scheduled for biopsy on November 7 -- are there reasons to worry? Thanks in advance!

ULTRASOUND FINDINGS: Targeted ultrasound of the right breast was performed. At the 5:30-3 position there is a parallel hypoechoic mass measuring 8.2 x 4.7 x 6.4 mm. It has some angular margins and internal vascularity. The mass has no posterior acoustic features. It corresponds in size and location to the mammographic mass. At the 6:30-7position and intramammary lymph node is identified which has been mammographically stable for many years.No suspicious lymph nodes are identified in the right axilla.

CODE:B4_B4N_-1_B4NOLET(BIRAD4SuspiciousFindings)

Nov 5, 2017 05:01AM djmammo wrote:

Ozarkgirl

I wouldn't worry yet. Since a prior study was mentioned in the report I assume this finding is new. They didn't use any descriptive terms that sound specifically malignant which is encouraging. It does need to be biopsied though.

The other good news is it is very small and the nodes under your arm on that side are OK so if it does turn out to be something bad it is very small and more treatable than if had been caught later. Let us know the path report when you hear. Good luck.

Nov 5, 2017 10:40PM - edited Nov 5, 2017 10:42PM by na_na

Thank you very much for your response, Dj Mammo.

I undergo MRIs, as I have very dense breast tissue and mammogram is not informative - BIRADS 0. I'm 36 and tried mammogram once.

The path report of lymphnode was hyperplasia.

Nov 9, 2017 08:46PM shazelwo wrote:

DJMAMMO,

I was hoping you can tell me more about my report. I am wondering if they may possibly be seeing scar tissue from a biopsy done to me in May that was benign . The clip did not show any issues on mammogram, but the area she describes is my previous biopsy site. I do not know if scar tissue could present the way she describes my area of suspicion. My report is LONG, so I hope you can find it in your heart to chime in. I dont know much about medical terms , my focus is in law so very different field of study! I do have a thread going in "waiting for results" but, I really wanted your opinion. Ofcourse, I will follow through with the biopsies she reccomends and they are scheduled for Monday. My anxiety is kicking up really good because of this whole thing.

Here is my report:

Standard images of both breasts in the CC and MLO projections using 
 tomosynthesis were performed. Magnification views of the 
 calcifications in the right breast were performed and compared to 
 previous magnification views as well. 

 The breasts are heterogeneously dense, which may obscure small 
 masses. The parenchymal pattern on the left is stable. Scattered 
 benign calcifications are noted throughout the left breast. 

 No suspicious masses, areas of architectural distortion or suspicious 
 microcalcifications are identified in the left breast. 

 A biopsy clip is noted in the lower outer right breast where the 
 patient underwent a previous benign biopsy performed by Dr. McCroskey. 
 No suspicious abnormalities detected in this area on the mammogram. 

 Nonspecific dense tissue is noted in the area of palpable concern in 
 the upper right breast at approximately 12:00 and a few lymph nodes 
 are noted in the general area of palpable concern in the right axilla 
 but they do not have a suspicious appearance. 

 Generalized density is noted in the central and inferior right breast 
 where calcifications are present. The calcifications have increased in 
 number when compared to the prior examination. This area of the right 
 breast was subsequently evaluated with ultrasonography and will be 
 described below. 

 A targeted right breast ultrasound was performed with attention to the areas of palpable concern, the area that was previously biopsied at 
 7:00 and the inferior right breast in the location of generalized 
 density include an increasing calcifications. 

 Currently in the right breast at 7:00, 6 cm from the nipple, multiple 
 cysts or possibly dilated ducts which appear to contain calcifications 
 are noted. This corresponds to the increased generalized density and 
 increasing calcifications on the mammogram. This spans up to 5 cm in 
 its greatest dimension. While its possible that this could represent 
 fibrocystic change with multiple calcifications, the possibility of 
 dilated ducts containing calcifications consistent with DCIS cannot 
 entirely be excluded and further evaluation with an ultrasound-guided 
 breast biopsy using vacuum assistance is recommended. It is also 
 recommended that the core samples be radiographed to ensure that 
 representative calcifications are present in the sample. 

 A round hypoechoic nodule measuring up to 4.2 cm is noted in the 
 posterior aspect of the right breast at 10:30, 4 cm from the nipple 
 which may represent a complex cyst or solid mass. Further evaluation 
 with an attempted aspiration followed by core biopsy, if it will not 
 aspirate is recommended in further assessment. 

 In the area of palpable concern in the upper right breast at 12:00, 
 benign-appearing tissue was noted at real-time. No suspicious 
 ultrasonographic abnormalities were identified in the area of palpable 
 concern in the right breast at 12:00 at real-time. 

 In the area of palpable concern in the right axilla, multiple 
 morphologically benign-appearing right axillary lymph nodes are noted 
 with echogenic hila and non-thickened cortices. A note is made that no 
 suspicious right axillary lymph nodes are identified. 

 IMPRESSION: 

 1. There is no mammographic evidence to suggest the presence of 
 malignancy in the left breast at this time. 
 2. There is increasing number of microcalcifications associated with 
 generalized density in the inferior right breast with corresponding 
 cystic change containing calcifications detected at ultrasonography at 
 7:00, 6 cm from the nipple. Further evaluation with an 
 ultrasound-guided breast biopsy using vacuum assistance and with a 
 specimen radiograph of the core samples for verification that 
 representative calcifications were retrieved is recommended. 
 3. Low suspicion nodule in the right breast at 10:30 for which further evaluation 
with a cyst aspiration and possible core biopsy is recommended. BIRADS CATEGORY 
4: SUSPICIOUS - Biopsy should be performed in the absence of 
clinical contraindication - 4B (Moderate suspicion for malignancy) 
A right ultrasound-guided breast biopsy x 2 is recommended. 

Nov 11, 2017 07:53AM - edited Nov 11, 2017 10:19AM by Moderators

Dear Red_Softail,

We are sorry that these breast changes are causing you alarm. We are glad that you reached out to our members. Have you discussed the report with your doctor? Are you looking for some advice here as to whether or not you need a follow up ultrasound? Perhaps a discussion with your doctor about what the path report means would be helpful . Let us know what you learn. The MOds

Nov 12, 2017 04:54PM - edited Nov 12, 2017 04:57PM by shazelwo

Thank you so much, as for the size i just copied her report so she may very well have meant mm since it is a long report. I have the biopsies tomorrow at 12:30 I will update when I know something. I looked at my other report where i had the nodule in May biopsied and it says that it was at 7 o'clock 6 cm from nipple.

Nov 13, 2017 05:38PM MelissaDallas wrote:

What was the Birads rating and what were the recommendations? Are you called back for more views to be taken and/or ultrasound?

It is really common to be called back on first mammogram, as there are no films to compare for your personal "normal." It very well may look benign on more views.