removal of mass

Hi, Thank you for answering my last question.  I have just one more.  My Dr. said that my surgeon will remove the entire mass.  Don't they usually biopsy first. I do have a family history so maybe thats why.  My Birad was 4 and I have two maasses in my left breast.  Maybe this is nothing to worry about but I am very concerned. Thank you so much for your help and I really appreciate any feedback.

[CCF-RN,MSN-rf]

Dear lourdes8:  There are different types of biopsies.  You are describing an excisional biopsy in which the entire "lump" is removed.  The pros of this type of biopsy is that it takes the entire lump for analysis, leaving no "questionable" tissue in the breast.  If it comes back negative, there is no worry that the biopsy "missed" the tissue. If it comes back positive, then you may have already had the lumpectomy.  Of course the margins will have to be evaluated and a second surgery could be required.

[lourdes8]

Just wanted to mention that I am 45 years of age as well.  Thank you again.

[lourdes8]

I just wanted to add that I am 45 years of age and at the end of my report it noted 4 or 5.  What does that exactly mean.

[surgeon]

If it's been decided that the best approach is an operation rather than some sort of needle biopsy, then there really is no reason to "biopsy" first: in other words, it's not much difference, unless the mass were really huge, between taking the whole thing out and sending it to the lab, compared to taking only a part. And, depending on the nature of the area, removing the whole thing would eliminate any concern about sampling error; meaning, could a benign report be due to not getting to the critical area. It's also theoretically preferrable to remove a tumor with the least amout of cutting through it. So it sounds like the approach of removing it all is a sensible and quite routine one

[lourdes8]

Thank you for the quick response and taking the time out in your busy day to clarify this to me.  I just want you to know how much I appreciate this.