5ingys, I just replied to your same post in a different thread. Since this is your own thread, I will copy and paste my answer over to here, and hopefully all the responses to you are on this thread. Here's my other answer:

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?

5ingys, as the others said, callbacks are very common. Beesie provided you with some very good data, that should be helpful. Please keep us posted.

Hi, to the OP:

Brest tomosynthesis ("3 d imaging") is most helpful for women with scattered or heterogeneously dense breasts. It is virtually not at all helpful in extremely dense or mostly fatty breasts.

For extremely dense breasts, adjunct screening with complete breast ultrasound and/or MRI (depending on other risk factors if >20% lifetime risk of breast cancer) is typically recommended.

5ingys, thank you!

peggysmom, please be careful when you make definitive statements. There was one study from earlier this year that found that women with extremely dense breast tissue "may not" benefit from 3D mammos, but previous studies have found that 3D mammos may in fact be significantly better at cancer detection for those with dense breasts. Here is a large study published last year:

Association of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography With Cancer Detection and Recall Rates by Age and Breast Density https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaoncology/arti...

"For women aged 40 to 49 years with nondense breasts, the cancer detection rate for examinations using DBT was 1.70 per 1000 women higher compared with the rate using DM; for women with dense breasts, the cancer detection rate was 2.27 per 1000 women higher for DBT. For these younger women, screening with DBT was associated with only 7 of 28 breast cancers (25.0%) categorized as poor prognosis compared with 19 of 47 breast cancers (40.4%) when screening with DM."

peggysmom, yes, I am aware that the study did not separate extremely dense from heterogeneously dense. But the benefit of 3D mammos was so significant for those 40-49 with dense breasts, and 30% of those women have extremely dense breasts, it's hard to believe that all the benefit would accrue only to those with heterogeneously dense breasts. But I suppose that's possible.

I understand that for those with extremely dense breasts, supplemental screening is recommended. I've explained this in posts on this site many times. But unfortunately not every one can access supplemental screening. Pretty much every reputable site I've seen (Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, ACS, Harvard Health...) recommends 3D mammos over 2D mammos for those with dense breasts. I'm always learning, and if you have studies that show that 3D mammos are no better than 2D mammos for those with extremely dense breasts, I'd love to see them. I am familiar with the JAMA study, but I admit I discount the results a bit. While the results reflect that there was no statistically significant benefit of 3D mammos over 2D mammos, there was a directional benefit, particularly for those 50-59 but to a lesser extent also for those 40-49. So based on that, as a patient, personally I would still opt for 3D over 2D, if given a choice, and I would recommend the same to friends and family - particularly if they have extremely dense breasts and are unable to get supplemental screening.

5ingys, sorry for taking your thread off track. To get back to your situation, I have a question for you. You mention that you have very dense breasts. Do you know if this is Category C Heterogeneously Dense, or Category D Extremely Dense?

5ingys, ah, with moderate density you can ignore all the earlier comments about whether or not 3D mammos are more effective on extremely dense breasts! I would guess that your moderate density is probably Cat C, Hetererogeneously Dense, which ranges from 51% - 75% density. That's the most common level of density, at least until women are well into menopause. 3D mammos are definitely better for those with moderate density.

Good luck on Monday, and let us know how it goes!

Wonderful news! Congratulations!

And thanks so much for letting us know.

I got focal asymmetry on my Mammogram the letter said no malignancy but they want to take another look. I'm freaking out@

Welcome Shellyhusch! I don't think I've seen you post before? You've mentioned just getting news of a callback after mammogram. If you haven't started your own thread you may want to do that - you'll get feedback specific to your situation. There's also a section for new members on the homepage that may be helpful to you. I'm not good at technology though believe it will be easy for you to see. I'm not the one with medical expertise, less in this area than other diagnoses, though others will come along.

I just wanted to reach out to you. Please keep us up on where you are in your process. Do you have a date for your diagnostic mammogram yet?