Callback

Seneca, sorry you are in this situation. I don't know your age, but if you are anywhere near peri-menopause, this could just be a cyst. Those often start to develop in women with fibrocystic breasts when they hit peri-menopause. I had so many cysts that I lost count - and while some were tiny, some were huge and seemed to show up out of nowhere. Like you I've also had a couple of fibroadenomas, but mine were very big, and I could have described them exactly as you've described your lump, it "moves a little but feels more like it is stuck with gum or something".

So don't assume that this is something serious. That's possible, of course, but it's much more likely that this is something benign. And if it shows up on an ultrasound as a either a simple or complicated cyst, a biopsy won't even be required (although larger cysts often are aspirated, just to get rid of them).

Good luck next week and please come back and let us know what happened.

43 is a prime age for peri-menopause. Doesn't mean that this mass is a cyst but you are at the age where cysts are extremely common. Hopefully that's what this is.

I started having call back diagnostic mammos & ultrasounds from my very first mammo at age 29. Every two years I had the same call back & every time I worried. I was not diagnosed with DCIS until age 67 so I had 38 years w/no problems. As stated above, concentrate on anything that will distract your mind. Hopefully it's B-9.

Joined: Nov 2020Posts: 5Latest activity: Nov 20, 2020

Seneca43 wrote:

So I picked up my mammo report this morning and I know that BIRADS 0 means need more. I am just wondering after seeing other ladies reports on here, my report is not that specific about the MASS.

Mine simply states: Comparison is made to prior mammorgrams

FINDINGS: Routine mammographic views are obtained of the breasts in combination with digital breast tomosynthesis.

The breast tissue is heterogeneously dense, which could obscure small masses.

In the left breast 1 o'clock position at mid depth is a mass for which further evaluation in required.

No suspicious microcalcifications, architectural distortion, or mass in the right breast.

Computer-aided detection was utilized by the radiologist in the interpretation of this exam.

IMPRESSION: Mass in the left breast requires additional evaluation.

BI-RADS Category 0: Needs additional imaging evaluation.

RECOMMENDATION: Additional evaluation of the left breast to include mammography and possible ultrasound. Consider complete bilateral breast ultrasound due to tissue density at time of follow-up examination.

There is no idea of the size of the mass or anything. Is this just because they could not tell from the screening? That is what I am assuming. Just when reading other reports on here I see a lot more detail. Thanks to anyone that can shed some positive light my way.

Seneca, there isn’t more detail because they can’t tell without more imaging. That is about all the takesway from this is.

I copied and pasted your post to this initial one because the prior information is pertinent and it is useful to responders to have it all in one place, rather than starting new threads for each question.

"There is no idea of the size of the mass or anything. Is this just because they could not tell from the screening?"

Yes, that's precisely why the assessment is BIRADs 0 and why you are being sent for more screening. If more information was available about the features of the mass, the assessment would be a BIRADs 2,3, 4 or 5, depending on the appearance of the mass.

Melissa, thanks for transferring the post over to this thread.

I am going through something similar. I got a call back after my 3D mammogram and all I was told is my paperwork says for “density” or dense”. I am terrified. I have very dense breasts. I am hoping and praying it’s nothing. How was your test results?

Seneca had her callback more than a week ago and has not signed in since before that date. Usually when someone doesn't return, it means that the results were fine.

5ingys, callbacks are extremely common - and 95% of them do not result in a diagnosis of cancer. Most often, whatever appears concerning on the initial mammogram is cleared up when the Radiologist reviews the callback imaging. Quite often the issue is just the way that the breast was squished in the mammogram machine, causing the appearance of distortion in the breast tissue when in fact there is nothing there. Or maybe there is something there, but upon further review it is clear that it's just a harmless fluid-filled cyst, which doesn't require any follow-up. Even if the callback imaging remains concerning and a biopsy is recommended, approx. 75% of biopsies turn out to be benign.

Do you have a copy of your mammogram imaging report? And will you be having both a diagnostic mammogram and ultrasound? A diagnostic mammogram provides a close-up magnified view of the area of concern, and an ultrasound 'sees' into the breast differently and offers the Radiologist a different view and additional information. Usually both are done when a callback is scheduled. And when is your callback?

Edited to add: 5ingys has started her own thread so it's best to answer her questions/concerns there rather than in Seneca's thread. I have copied over my response to that thread: https://community.breastcancer.org/forum/83/topics/878336?page=1&post_creation=true#post_5616937

peggysmom

Since you're new here, you might not realize that Beesie is the primary resident researcher here and has earned her credibility (and other members' respect) over several years. It's fine to come in and offer differing views, but I think we'd all like to know a little more about your background and credentials as a researcher.

AliceBastable, peggysmom mentioned (in response to my question in another thread) that she is a breast radiologist. I'm always happy to learn. And she is correct that a "diagnostic mammogram" doesn't always include magnified views; it might involve taking images from different angles or spot compression. So I could have been clearer. That said, I know that I've had magnified views for more than just calcifications, and I recently rewatched a video that djmammo posted about architectural distortion that showed the use of a magnified view to look more closely at the area of distortion. In fact, in explaining the difference between screening and diagnostic mammos, djmammo said this:

"A diagnostic study is one that focuses on a problem either found on a screening exam or found on physical exam. It is most often a unilateral exam that will include spot compression views and magnified views of the area of interest"

And from Radiopedia (https://radiopaedia.org/articles/magnification-view-mammography):

"A magnification view in mammograpy is performed to evaluate and count microcalcifications and its extension (as well the assessment of the borders and the tissue structures of a suspicious area or a mass) by using a magnification device which brings the breast away from the film plate and closer to the x-ray source. This allows the acquisition of magnified images (1.5x to 2x magnification) of the region of interest. "

So I guess there are differences of opinion on this even between radiologists.

Seneca, a 6-month follow-up means that the radiologist assessed the imaging as a BI-RADs 3. This means that by his (or her) assessment, there is less than a 2% chance that this is cancer. If there is a change in 6 months, then further testing will be necessary, but most often whatever is being watched remains stable or shrinks/disappears/dissipates. And if it cancer? From what I've read (and perhaps peggysmom can verify or correct), most breast cancers have been in the breast for 3-5 years before they become large enough to be found be screening. Some have been present for even longer than that. As a general rule (with some rare exceptions), breast cancer is slow growing. So the reason why radiologists are comfortable with a 6 month follow-up is because 6 months isn't likely to make any difference in the diagnosis and prognosis. As someone who has had my share of 6-month follow-ups, I can say that I always preferred that to having a biopsy (I've have enough biopsies) and none of my 6-month follow-ups ever even required a biopsy. Hopefully that's the case for you too!

Hi Ladies, I initially stumbled upon this forum not as an MD, radioogist, or Breast Imager, but as a patient- seeking support and "strength in numbers" and getting a new persepective now that I literally find myself on the other end of the biopsy table. If I can be of help to anyone, that's a plus- but right now i'm dealing with my own diagnosis and finding it difficult to navigate reconstruction options.