lump ignored by mammography

[banana1978]

I had a breast lump Aug. 2006, so had a mammogram. I got a call afterwards saying, everything's fine. So the lump has remained. I went to the doctor this month for a check up and she was alarmed by the lump, but I told her it had been checked out and was nothing. She said it wasn't normal, I got another mammogram and an ultrasound. REsults: mammographically, there is a 2cm nodule seen anterior to the breat tissue near immediate subcutaneous location. Ultrasound demonstrates a 1.7 x 1.4 x 1.5 cm hyoechoic nodule. biopsy suggested. The mammogram of 2006 shows no lump, though it was definitely there, so that is why they said everything was fine. We also have no measure of the lump then to see if it has changed. It seems like an error on the part of the doctor not to pursue finding out what the lump was. Is the fact the lump wasnt perceived by the mammogram in 2006 any comfort, or rather the opposite?

[confusedinva]

Hi, I woudl say that if you had a lump the fact that you had a negative mammogram would not be reassuring or alarming. Both you and your Doctor shoudl have followed this up. I think too many womaen are reassured by havinng a negative mammogram.They are not 100% accurate. There are false negatives as well as false positives.An ultrasound and MRI and finally a biopsy should be done to pursure the cause of a persistent lump.

[Cleveland Clinic]

Dear Bananna1978:  Without reviewing the mammograms and ultrasound and doing clinical examinations, it is impossible to speculate on whether this may have been there in 2006, has changed or what this might be.  You may review this with your doctors who can compare and provide you with some answers.