Multiple residual microcalcifications

Pollie

I'm new to the forum, but I was diagnosed with DCIS in spring of 2016, and had a lumpectomy and radiation. I felt fortunate since my sister had invasive cancer a few years before, and the treatment and larger worries were much more difficult to bear. I have been going for 6-month mammograms since my surgery, and at the last one, they discovered what they think are "multiple residual calcifications" in the same area. I assume this term means they suspect more of what was there the first time and somehow not caught? I have had two mammograms, ultrasound, and am now awaiting the results of the biopsy. The radiologist said they got several good samples to test, and that there was lots more there if necessary -- which doesn't sound encouraging! I understand that there is a chance the calcifications will be benign. But my question is -- since there is lots in the breast -- how will they know if it is all benign? Is it possible for some clusters to be one or the other? Will they want to remove the calcifications regardless of the results? I've been trying to be patient and save these questions for the doctor, but I can't help worrying. Since I already had radiation, I am wondering if they will recommend a mastectomy. Anyone who's been through this, or has advice, I would love to hear from you.

Moderators

Hi Pollie and welcome -- we're so sorry you find yourself here, worrying, but we're really glad you found us!

We're sure others will be by shortly to weigh in, but wanted to at least drop in and welcome you. Thanks for posting and please keep us posted on what you find out.

--The Mods

brigid_TO

Hi Pollie

I went through something similar a few months ago. It was actually my first six month followup after finishing treatment. Microcalcs were seen on the mammogram leading to another mammogram, US and then a stereotactic biopsy. The result was benign, Microcalcs are quite common especially after treatment.They look at the size, shape of the microcalcs and how they are scattered in the breast. Do you have any of that information? Did they tell you your BiRAIDS score?

Well you are right they aren't sampling everything. But they sample the area that looks the most suspicious and then take multiple samples of that. Also know that because you have a previous diagnosis of DCIS they will be extra cautious with everything. Biopsies are pretty common. So if the biopsy is benign then you are good to go for another 6 months where they will compare what's happening with the microcalcs from previous radiology. If there is a problem then yes the most likely scenario would be mastectomy. I'll keep a good thought for a benign outcome for you. Please let us know how eveything goes.

Pollie

Hi Brigid. Thanks so much for your response, and thanks also to the moderators for the friendly welcome. Your story is heartening. I don't have a lot of detail about the pattern, but the report does say the radiologist suspects multiple residual calcs "given the distribution." The score is BiRADS 4. At my last mammogram, 6 months ago, I saw my surgeon immediately afterwards. He hadn't seen the results yet, but he said he felt confident waiting one year for my next mammogram, but by the end of the day his office had called me and said they would prefer to have me back in six months, which is now. I wasn't given any details, but when I arrived for my mammogram this time, the technician said, so, we're just checking on some calcifications they were seen last time. That was the first I knew of that, and it caught me off guard. I see from your profile you also chose to take Tamoxifen. I didn't do that, but I am now rethinking. (I'm in Toronto too.)

Pollie

Hi again. I've seen my results online now, but still not spoken to a health professional to get the full story. It sounds encouraging though. The diagnosis (even after retesting the samples at "deeper levels") is "Scattered ducts with cytologic atypia, most in keeping with treatment effect." This sounds to me like they believe the change in the calcifications is due to radiation. Hoping for confirmation of that soon, but happy to hear from anyone else with thoughts on this interpretation.