microcalcification

I am 43 years old. Had my first mammo 2008 which showed cluster of microcalcifications. Ff-up after 6 mos , 2009, showed slight increase in the microcalcification, report advised biopsy but my breast surgeon thought that instead i should wait for the next mammo to check. 8 mos after, May 2010 showed status quo, no change in the microcalcification. Stereotactic was supposed to be done the other day but there was a technical problem with the machine as they cannot position it well. I was told that i have 2 options: one is to repeat and see if it progress 6 mos after or undergo localization biopsy to be done in the OR under anesthesia. What do i do? Kindly help... having difficulty deciding... thx in advance.

[zouzi]

Hi,
As I can gather,In 2008 your Mammogram showed cluster of microcalcifications .In 2009 a biopsy was recommended,because of changes, and again in 2010 a biopsy was scheduled, but was not done because of machine failure..If I were you,I would certainly opt for a biopsy in the OR under anesthesia and not wait another 6 months.
Many clustered calcification are found to be benign in nature after a biopsy procedure, but the fact is that when these calcifications are suspicious,they need to be further investigated to make sure that they are not forming because of an underlying problem.
Please talk to your Doctor about your concern so the right decision can be made.
I wish you well and good luck.

[iam1butterfly]

Scary, isn't it?
I was in a similar situation. In 2005 microcals were noted in my mammogram for which I was given the option to either wait 6 months for a follow up mammo or have a stereotactic (needle) biposy. So, I opted for the stereotactic biopsy. However, because of the location of my calcifications (too close to the chest wall) that procedure couldn't be performed. So, I went with the surgical (excisional) biopsy, which thankfully returned with a benign finding.

Then, In 2007, more cals appeared in the same breast and in nearly the exact same location as the previous cluster. Again, I opted for another attempt with the stereotactic procedure... and, this time, it was successful. Once again, the cals were found to be of a benign origin. In fact, the surgeon speculated that the impact from the initial surgical biopsy may have stimulated the growth that resulted in the newly formed cluster.

Anyway, my decision to go with biopsies was primarily due to the fact that I have an extensive family history of Cancer, including Breast Cancer... plus, I have no patience at all... which means that I just couldn't see myself waiting out the 6 month period without going crazy and not knowing the nature of the cals.

Now, this isn't to say that the 6 month wait-and-see approach is a bad way to go. Some people are able to do that... I'm just not one of them! And, I can honestly tell you that it's no picnic walk having either biopsy procedure; but, I'd sooner go that route than wait. But, that's just me and my gut feeling.

So, I would say to you that it really depends on what "feels right" for you and whether or not you're "comfortable" with the waiting process. It can be a tough call, I know and I wish you the best of luck with whichever way you decide to go. If you'd like more detailed info about either biopsy procedure, I'd be more than happy to share.  Take care!

"i"