No clue what I'm doing

Yes, Jaime. First, I have a few of my own. Where did the biopsy attempt take place--a small community hospital or a university medical center? If at the latter, was it at a specific breast health center within the facility? Second, who unsuccessfully tried to biopsy your lesion--a general surgeon, general radiologist, breast surgeon, breast cancer surgeon or breast radiologist? Obviously, the first is worst and the last is best, simply by virtue of volume of specific experience. Next, was the possibility of an MRI even discussed? “Dense breast tissue” makes mammographic and ultrasound imaging less reliable than MRI--and at a breast health center at a university hospital, MRI-guided core biopsies are readily available whereas that technology does not exist at many small-town (or even urban secular or faith-based “community” hospitals). I say this as the wife of a cardiologist (and primary-care gerontologist) who practices at a small urban independent faith-based community hospital, slightly larger suburban one, and a major university-affiliated multidisciplinary medical center (part of a top-notch multi-hospital system that happens to be faith-based itself). Guess where he sends most of his patients who need anything beyond primary care?

Did the same radiologist who did the diagnostic ultrasound do the core biopsy? I ask because my first radiologist was “non-invasive” and the second specialized in invasive breast radiological procedures: image-guided (stereotactic, ultrasound and MRI) core-needle biopsies, pre-op wire localizations and radioactive seed placements, etc. The difference between the types of experience between the two was considerable. A surgeon--maybe even a general surgeon--would do a good job at incisional and excisional biopsies but may not be as skilled at being able to follow an ultrasound image to the “target” of a lesion to be core-needle-biopsied as would an invasive breast radiologist.

Who finally excised the lesion--your OBGyn, the radiologist who performed the ultrasound, or (assuming it was yet another doc) the doctor who attempted the core biopsy? Considering the original ultrasound led to a BIRADS 4c classification (e.g., "highly suspicious" for malignancy--4a is "slightly suspicious,” 4b is “moderately suspicious,” 5 is “high likelihood of malignancy” and 6 is an already-confirmed malignancy), it’s a darn good thing it’s out--but depending on the path report, you should strongly consider a second opinion from a breast surgeon at a major university medical center (preferably one with a breast health center)--if malignant, you will need an actual lumpectomy and sentinel-node biopsy to accurately “stage" your tumor to determine your treatment plan. And in the USA, there are programs to help transport you to such a facility for your surgical treatment and even defray the costs should you otherwise be unable to afford it. (Can’t speak to the UK, Aus, or Canada--maybe one of our members living there can weigh in)