Member Comments are provided by individuals and reflect their personal opinions only. Under NO circumstances should you act on any advice or opinion posted in this forum. ALWAYS check with your personal physician before taking any action regarding your health! MedHelp International and our partners, sponsors and affiliates have no obligation to monitor any comments posted on this site, or the content and/or accuracy of such exchanges. MedHelp International does not endorse the views of any user.
Breast Cancer (Expert Forum)
Am I right to be worried?
Questions posted in the Breast Cancer Forum are answered by medical professionals from The Cleveland Clinic. Topics include Breast Biopsy, Chemotherapy, Hormone Therapy, Lumps, Lumpectomy, Lymph node dissection, Lymphedema, Mammograms, Mastectomy, Radiation Therapy, Reconstruction, Self Breast Exam, and Surgery.
Am I right to be worried?
by bops, Jan 07, 2004 12:00AM
Following FNA which came back as inconclusive, the surgeon said that no cells were present, I had lumpectomy a month later, and have received a letter telling me it was benign.
Since then I have rec a copy of the cytology and histology report.
The FNA report (oct 2003) states hypocellular. Both cells present in small poorly formed groups, show mild degree of nuclear pleomorphism with prominant nucleoli: overall appearance are slightly suspicious of malignancy.
The lumpectomy report (nov 2003) states: lobular involution and features suggestive of early fibrotic change. No micro-calcification, no evidence of in-situ or invasive malignancy. no pathological findings to account for the clinical presence of a lump.
Concl: lobular involution.
How can 1 report state susp malignancy and the other not?
I am now wondering if the surgeon and I were felling different lumps!
Please can you help?
Bops
Since then I have rec a copy of the cytology and histology report.
The FNA report (oct 2003) states hypocellular. Both cells present in small poorly formed groups, show mild degree of nuclear pleomorphism with prominant nucleoli: overall appearance are slightly suspicious of malignancy.
The lumpectomy report (nov 2003) states: lobular involution and features suggestive of early fibrotic change. No micro-calcification, no evidence of in-situ or invasive malignancy. no pathological findings to account for the clinical presence of a lump.
Concl: lobular involution.
How can 1 report state susp malignancy and the other not?
I am now wondering if the surgeon and I were felling different lumps!
Please can you help?
Bops
Doctor's Answer
by CCF-RN,MSN-JS, Jan 07, 2004 12:00AM
Dear Bops, From what is written above it seems the FNA did not provide enough information to come to a conclusion, and it may be the interpretation was to err on the side of caution. The lumpectomy removes more tissue, and there is a better sample to evaluate, what is read as early fibrotic change, may be on a small sample slightly suspicious as they don't have as many cells, or tissue to be sure.
In the pre-surgical evaluation was there any mention of more than 1 lump? If you are unsure discuss with your surgeon if there is any possibility of this, for your peace of mind.
In the pre-surgical evaluation was there any mention of more than 1 lump? If you are unsure discuss with your surgeon if there is any possibility of this, for your peace of mind.
during lumpectomy, one lump was removed and another was biopsied, the biopsy came back as fibrofatty tissue.