Cystic Hyperplasia call backs and dense breasts. 2nd opinion?

Over the course of 7 years I've had 5 screening mammograms and gotten callbacks on 4. (I missed a couple of years - hang my head in shame.) I started getting them when I was 39 due to GYN wanting a baseline on my lumpy breasts. During those 7 years my mother was dx'd with breast cancer. And I got back on making sure I was screened. My paternal grandmother had breast cancer as well.

At baseline (and ever after) I was told very dense breasts and since there was a cluster of microcalcifictions wanted me back. We did the 4 month, then 6 month etc. Ultrasound and spot compression once.. They felt just normal fibrocystic breast changes. I totally always expect a callback to the point that when I didn't get one the one time I immediately requested report to be sure the normal things were noted. They were. Radioloigst just felt nothing new worth checking. Just normal fibrocystic breasts with the same cluster that had been watched for years. Terms like milk of calcium and cystic hyperplasia used. One doc told me that my left breast was a 'sea of calcifications' and that I was full of micro cysts on that side evidently. And that accounted for all the micro cysts. BI-RADS 3 -- so that's all good.

I looked up articles. Read. Understood. They were doing right thing and watching but they appeas normal. I was good with that.

This last screening I was, of course, called back for mag views. This report noted: "These do not have the appearance of cystic hyperplasia."

This time they were looking at a new cluster in a new area (still same breast as always.) Tech had the hardest time getting shots. Had to repeat them twice. Kept saying: "You are so dense it's like searching in a snow storm." Doctor reviewed and passed on the usual news : come back in 4 months for more mag views to see what they were like. This report said "The majority of the calcifications layer in the dependent position consistent with cystic hyperplasia. The calcifications in question are similar in appearance. There is no associated mass."

No mention of size, number, appearance (I usually see terms like oval or punctuate) But the news was good.

This time there was a note about Tyrer-Cuzick lifetime breast cancer estimate: 28% and said: risk of greater than 20% should consider enhanced breast cancer screening including consideration for breast MRI.

So..... no one has suggested a MRI other than this letter. I like to be informed and educated about my health. I call my GYN after every mammogram to request I get my copies of the report. We've never really discussed them though. I guess that's mostly my fault in that I should have asked at my annual last month: talk to me about these reports.

I've recently had a friend suggest I go see a breast surgeon to get his opinion on everything. (She had to see him a year or so ago for a biopsy) I'm not saying I want to go ask for a biopsy. That's not it at all: I feel, for the most part, like I just want someone to spend 10 minutes discussing my history with me. Explaining instead of me reading online journals etc to educate myself based on reports I have to request. And also wanting to be sure I really do understand. (I am pretty sure I do... watching clustered micrcalcifications because they can be indicative of a malignancy but more often than not they are not.)

I was totally against her idea -- but now I'm thinking having a person spend a few minutes reviewing all my films and past reports and then talking to me might be a good thing. Talk about if I should add an MRI to screening. Or ultrasound routinely etc.

Is it silly to go talk to him when there are no issues at this time apparently? I guess I just worry a breast surgeon appt it a bit overkill for a second opinion at this stage. BUT since they specialize in breasts.... I just don't know.

Any input would be greatly appreciated. Sorry so long.