Findings on mammograms

[liebma]

I had a  mammogram report in 2009 that said "microcalcifications as seen in 2007".   However looking back at previous mammogram reports, the 2007 report said "no microcalicification seen, normal mammogram", the 2008 mammogram report said "no microcalicifications seen, normal mammogram".  After questioning several doctors and radiologist that reviewed all the mammograms, they confirmed the microcalcifications were present in 2007 and 2008 even though the reports said there were none.  

I had microcalcifications that turned out to be cancer and multifocal and I ended up having a mastectectomy.
My question is, if you saw this on your mammogram report would you think the radiologist misread the mammograms in 2007 and 2008?  If I had been informed in 2007 and 2008 there were microcalcifications then I would have researched what it meant, insisted on closer follow up and even a biopsy. Do you think it's possible that if my mammogram were read correctly in 2007 and 2008 that the cancer could have been discovered earlier saving me from having a mastectomy?



This discussion is related to micro calcifications on mamogram.

[ncmichigan]

I'm so sorry to hear your story also, liebma---it really is sad.
Just a thought, but you may want to consult an attorney who specializes in medical
cases. A review of your records by an expert might give you an idea if anything was missed and if you might have a case against the 2007 and 2008 radiologist/s. I realize
doctors are human and mistakes can be made, but at the minimum, if it was a mistake you'd want to make sure the same mistake didn't happen to another woman. You may
also want to be compensated for your losses, physical, emotional and monetary.
Wishing you all the best and sending you a big hug (    ),
nc

[bluebutterfly2222]

This is certainly a very troubling scenario!

Did the same radiologist or radiology group read the latest mammo as read the 2007 and 2008 ones?  If the same, I would certainly demand an explanation of why the microcalcs "weren't seen" before, but are now "seen" on the old images.

If this is a different group, they might support you if you ever decide to file a complaint with your state's  board of medicine, regarding the original radiologist, or even entertain the idea of a lawsuit.

Was it an invasive cancer that led to your having the mastectomy? If so, a case could be made that a biopsy a couple of years earlier might have detected atypical hyperplasia, or DCIS or LCIS (depending on your eventual dx), before an invasion occurred.

I am very sorry this happened to you, and can understand the doubt and uncertainty it has created in your mind.

Best wishes...