New to LCIS and forums

Have you considered asking for genetic counseling?  If you are BRCA positive, or another heritable single mutation positive, this may play a role in your decision.

Genetic counseling should not tell you whether or not to get tested, but just give you more information (and counseling).  I found it very helpful, even though I was considered low risk for BRCA.  Genetic counseling does NOT commit you to having genetic testing.

Of the papers I have read, they say most LCIS is marker for higher risk for breast cancer. But they also say that classical LCIS alone (i.e. type A - the vast majority of LCIS diagnoses) can 'in a small number of cases be a nonobligate precursor' for cancer.   I have NEVER seen a statement that LCIS IS a precursor for cancer - that's because not everyone who has LCIS goes on to get breast cancer. The 'nonobligate' adjective is important.  That means in a small number of cases cells are NOT committed to becoming cancerous - it is NOT inevitable they will become cancerous -they may become cancerous, but they may also just sit there.   Of the LCIS women who go on to get invasive bc or DCIS, I think most cancers occur in areas that were thought to be LCIS-free.  (But of course, they can't really know that without having a mastectomy beforehand, since LCIS is usually not detectable by clinical exam, ultrasound, or mammogram. Most LCIS (with nothing worse)  is found not AT, but adjacent to, the lesion that prompted the biopsy.  )

No one will also define 'small'. 

When I told my cousin about my interest in BPMs, she did discourage me - she had a friend who had BMs, and regretted it. I don't know this friend's circumstances. But I didn't like that - I wanted to have the CHOICE FOR MYSELF. (The first thing my BS said to me after they had found LCIS on biopsy, BEFORE knowing my family history, was 'If you want PBMs, I'm going to fall down in my chair.'  That is one of several reasons why I can't stand her, but that's a different story.) 

In this 2004 Cochrane study about prophylactic mastectomy,

Twenty-three studies, including more than 4,000 patients, met inclusion criteria. No randomized or nonrandomized controlled trials were found. Most studies were either case series or cohort studies. All studies had methodological limitations, with the most common source of potential bias being systematic differences between the intervention and comparison groups that could potentially be associated with a particular outcome...While published observational studies demonstrated that BPM was effective in reducing both the incidence of, and death from, breast cancer, more rigorous prospective studies (ideally randomized trials) are needed. The studies need to be of sufficient duration and make better attempts to control for selection biases to arrive at better estimates of risk reduction. The state of the science is far from exact in predicting who will get or who will die from breast cancer. By one estimate, most of the women deemed high risk by family history (but not necessarily BRCA 1 or 2 mutation carriers) who underwent these procedures would not have died from breast cancer, even without prophylactic surgery. Therefore, women need to understand that this procedure should be considered only among those at very high risk of the disease. For women who had already been diagnosed with a primary tumor, the data were particularly lacking for indications for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. While it appeared that contralateral mastectomy may reduce the incidence of cancer in the contralateral breast, there was insufficient evidence about whether, and for whom, CPM actually improved survival. Physical morbidity is not uncommon following PM, and many women underwent unanticipated re-operations (usually due to problems with reconstruction); however, these data need to be updated to reflect changes in surgical procedures and reconstruction. Regarding psychosocial outcomes, women generally reported satisfaction with their decisions to have PM but reported satisfaction less consistently for cosmetic outcomes, with diminished satisfaction often due to surgical complications. Therefore, physical morbidity and post-operative surgical complications were areas that should be considered when deciding about PM. With regard to emotional well-being, most women recovered well postoperatively, reporting reduced cancer worry and showing reduced psychological morbidity from their baseline measures; exceptions also have been noted. Of the psychosocial outcomes measured, body image and feelings of femininity were the most adversely affected.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15495033

Some breast surgeons insist that their patients wait at least 3-6-12 months before PBM, because its a permanent decision, and they want to make sure that's what the patient wants.  

Just as cornellalum says,  "Take your time.  Then do what you feel you need to do."