Want your advice

2Floridiansisters said:

Hi Connie
As much as I would like to help you, forgetabouit, I can't advise you on anything, I would like to say, one day this will all be behind you once and for all. Keep happy positive thoughts in your head, you have such a beautiful smile there!

Love Ronda

Hi Connie. Don't you love
Hi Connie. Don't you love when your doctors can't agree on your care? It is so confusing! It's not unusual to have all three of the tests that were recommended. Usually, the MRI and ultrsound are done based on the fact that something was found on the mammogram. But, that's when you have a routine mammogram.

Since there was a suspicious area on the MRI, I would go for the follow-up MRI. My breast surgeon recommended regular follow-ups for a period of time after a suspicious area was found. I also think that you should continue to have your regular mammograms: everyone is supposed to have regular mammograms.

Although the oncologist is supposed to be the primary cancer doctor, I considered my breast surgeon to be the one that was most interested in follow-ups. She ordered my annual mammograms and any other tests required as a result of the findings. I had been her patient for many years before I was diagnosed with cancer, so I was very comfortable with her and her diagnostic abilities. The oncologist seemed most interested in what chemicals she could/should give me, and I felt that the radiation oncologist lost interest after the treatments were done. Of course, this was my experience, yours could be much different.

This is much longer than I had planned. Hope it helps.

Joyce

my humblest of opinions
I'm with the other gals who advocate multiple diagnostic tools. The more the better as far as I'm concerned. I come at this from two sides... I am a radiologic technologist (although I don't work in MRI) so I have an understanding of the differences between the tools. Each one tells a part of the picture that the others cannot. MRI is what FOUND my cancer although it didn't show with mammo - so I'm kinda partial to it for someone with dense fibrocystic breasts (not everyone). My biopsy for that side however was done under ultrasound - the MRI guided biopsy of a spot on the other breast was only done because we couldn't locate it with the ultrasound. MRI also gives them the ability to know whether the mass is concerning due to the way it draws in and releases the contrast or dye. It sounds reasonable for you to start with the 6mo f/u MRI next month to compare apples to apples (no pun intended :O)) Then certainly the digital mammo - either could lead to an ultrasound of the suspicious area. It does not mean if you need a biopsy that it would have to be MRI guided unless they cannot detect it with the other two. Stereotactic and Ultrasound guided biopsies are both effective as well. Unfortunately I've had all three over the years and I must say I thought the ultrasound guided was the least uncomfortable because you dont have to lay on your stomach or be in a 'vise grip' Having said that, I would resubmit myself to any one of them the radiologist felt was necessary or warranted to diagnose properly. Your experience with the previous biopsy could be due to the location of the mass and might have been the result no matter which method was used.
So sorry you are hesitant - uncertainty is always the worst for me! That's why using ALL the tools available to ensure you are still cancer-free and help you regain your peace of mind sounds worth it - but again, that's just my humble opinion.
I do hope you are able to regain that peace of mind again soon! I do hope I've helped... My thoughts and prayers are with you :O)
Chris

cancerfree63 said:

my humblest of opinions
I'm with the other gals who advocate multiple diagnostic tools. The more the better as far as I'm concerned. I come at this from two sides... I am a radiologic technologist (although I don't work in MRI) so I have an understanding of the differences between the tools. Each one tells a part of the picture that the others cannot. MRI is what FOUND my cancer although it didn't show with mammo - so I'm kinda partial to it for someone with dense fibrocystic breasts (not everyone). My biopsy for that side however was done under ultrasound - the MRI guided biopsy of a spot on the other breast was only done because we couldn't locate it with the ultrasound. MRI also gives them the ability to know whether the mass is concerning due to the way it draws in and releases the contrast or dye. It sounds reasonable for you to start with the 6mo f/u MRI next month to compare apples to apples (no pun intended :O)) Then certainly the digital mammo - either could lead to an ultrasound of the suspicious area. It does not mean if you need a biopsy that it would have to be MRI guided unless they cannot detect it with the other two. Stereotactic and Ultrasound guided biopsies are both effective as well. Unfortunately I've had all three over the years and I must say I thought the ultrasound guided was the least uncomfortable because you dont have to lay on your stomach or be in a 'vise grip' Having said that, I would resubmit myself to any one of them the radiologist felt was necessary or warranted to diagnose properly. Your experience with the previous biopsy could be due to the location of the mass and might have been the result no matter which method was used.
So sorry you are hesitant - uncertainty is always the worst for me! That's why using ALL the tools available to ensure you are still cancer-free and help you regain your peace of mind sounds worth it - but again, that's just my humble opinion.
I do hope you are able to regain that peace of mind again soon! I do hope I've helped... My thoughts and prayers are with you :O)
Chris</p>

I agree with the multiple
I agree with the multiple tests as my lump was not seen on mammo, and inconclusive on MRI although it was seen which required a biopsy. it was lobular which is difficult to see on mammo. My friend gets an Mri once a year and a mammo once a year, six months apart.

Megan M said:

I also agree that if it were
I also agree that if it were me, I would have every test, no matter what run. I wouldn't want any question in my mind that I had done everything possible to keep myself free and clear of cancer.

Good luck with your decision.

ditto
I go with having all the tests done to give you and the treatment team as much information as possible in figuring out what is going on in there.I know this is very difficult but I would want every tool in the toolbox used to rule out further development of cancer.
Wishing you all the best. Keep posting. We have your back and are here for you.
Hugs, K

CypressCynthia said:

Can't offer advice but...
My little sister initially had what they thought was DCIS. She insisted that she have bilateral mastectmies because 2 of her sisters had had cancer already. Turned out she had 2 small areas of invasive intraductal carcinoma, no nodes. She did 5 years tamoxifen and chemo. Her oncologist wanted her to take femara but she thought it was overkill. She had a local recurrence a year later that showed up on MRI only. She had the area "cleaned up" and then had radiation. She has been on femara since the recurrence and has been clean for about 5 years.

My message is to be very cautious. Tests can confuse things sometimes (false positives), but they can also truly save lives.

I would..
In your shoes, I would do every test available. As Cynthia wrote, tests truly do save lives.


HUGS!

24242 said:

Two thoughts on this
When I was finished with all the treatments 14 years ago and had numerous lumps in healthy breast in that first year and finally had the second removed and never did they want to do MRI I did have CT scans though and my mother always felt that was one thing I should be having and caring for cancer survivors was her business.
No never got one and had many reasons to do one but all my doctors said back then that more tests were not better and radiation levels were things I might want to be concerned about. That was said 14 years ago and now doing them because they need to not because I wanted them to.
Now the surgeon I just saw told me that if just relied on the biopsy they might miss a cancer all together so biopsies are just a small part of a very big picture. Not so eager to hack me up once again either maybe not such a bad thing to know what they are getting themselves into before invading it.
I have to tell you after having my two MRIs in a week I have been in agony in places I have had problems but were not bothering me. I have 3 colapsed discs in my back and my lord I could hardly stand it so what was that about?
Tara

If I had a "suspicious" area
If I had a "suspicious" area show up, I would have every test that there is to make sure that it isn't cancer again. Let us know what you decide and what you find out if you have the tests. Best of luck to you!

crselby said:

over-diagnosis vs over-treatment
I can't thank you all enough for your opinions! It means so much to me to hear your thoughts. I feel like I kind of know some of you, in a way, from your other posts and opinions, and I respect your thinking.

I've decided to have the MRI in July, then the mammo & ultrasounds in August, as scheduled. I understand the point my onc was trying to make: that many MRIs show 'false positives'. I've had 2 false positives already.

After reading some discussions on the breastcancer.org boards about how it has been advised that women are being 'over-diagnosed', that whether the cancer is caught early or late has no bearing on survival (but, IMO, has a huge effect on quality of life!!!), and therefore, screening mammograms should be done only every other year.... it got me to thinking that the problem isn't too much information (over-diagnosing) but what is DONE with that information (possibly over treatment).

Long story short: I'll have the MRI, see if the suspicious spot is still there, then decide if it needs biopsying or watchful waiting...

Thanks again, everyone.
~~Connie~~

Glad you are having the MRI
Glad you are having the MRI Connie. Praying for a clean result!