Q1. Is it common practice to not perform a sentinel node biopsy on cases like mine? I'm concerned that perhaps the pathology report may have been in error concerning the not multifocal nature of the cancer since in the operation report my surgeon stated: "There was potentially one small additional calcification visualized (radiographically) which appear to have an adequate margin."
Q2. Am I being paranoid insisting that I someone takes another look at the tissue?
Pathology
- reported after stereotactic biopsy: DCIS, Grade II/III, cribriform pattern w/necrosis; intraluminal mircocalcifications.
- reported after the lumpectomy (2 speciums): (A needle directed biopsy) focal residual DCIS, MSBR Grade II/III, with necrosis, adjacent to prior biopsy site; DCIS measures ~.3cm in greatest dimension; DCIS approaches within .1cm of the lateral surgical margin; no invasive tumor identified; fibrocystic changes. (B designated lateral, reexcision): intraductal hyperplasia w/o atypia; fibrocystic changes; no in situ or invasive carcinoma identified.
Comment: The DCIS seen in part A comprises on major and scattered very small foci of noncomedo type which are all adjacent to the biopsy sidt and which are interpreted as being part of the DCIS prior biopsy (i.e., not multifocal disease)Although the DCIS closely approaches the lateral aspect of specimen A, specimen B (verbally designated by the surgeon as an additional excision just lateral to specimen A: contains no DCIS, and therefore the margins are interpreted as negative.