moi

Is the biopsy you recommend the same thing as a 'fine need aspiration'?
That is what the letter I just received says they may perform, along with a
mammogram and ultrasound.

Amy

a. p. thorsen

A "fine needle aspiration" is a type of biopsy. It's one of the easiest
to have, and can be used to drain the lump if it turns out to be
fluid-filled. There's lots of info on the web about types of biopsies;
one site is:

http://womenshealth.about.com/cs/breastlumps/a/brstlumpbiopsy.htm

If you're having a mammogram & ultrasound as well as a biopsy, it sounds
like they're doing pretty thorough follow-up for you. This is good!

Hoping for a good result (keep us posted!),

Ann T.
Remove 'dontsendspam' from address to reply by email

sandra

Everyone told me the BB-sized lump, 1/2cm, was "nothing to worry about."
Even the surgeon said to wait and see if it grew. I said "No, way, check it
out NOW!"

Due to the small size, the surgeon was afraid the needle biopsy might miss
the lump and would not risk an error so opted for a regular biopsy. The
results were positive for cancer. Opted for both breasts to be removed due
to mom and her DAD having breast cancer. Pathology found involvement in two
lymph nodes and it was VERY aggressive - her2+3, er-.

Due to finding it so quickly, the chances for recurrence were only 10% - the
best odds given. Had I not taken control of what I needed to have done, I
dread to think what would have happened.

As it is, I've been cancer-free for three years - the magic time-frame for
this type cancer.

My prayers are, of course, that your tiny ball is nothing, but no amount of
conjecture or thinking will provide an accurate diagnosis. Checking things
out never hurts, but not checking them out...

Hugs,
Sandra

moi

Hi, I'm unclear as to the difference between a "regular" and a "needle"
biopsy. Can you clarify? They can offer me a fine needle aspiration.

Was your lump easily moveable? Mine is in a different place every day
(within a range of 2cm in all directions). It can be easily pushed from the
surface, back to where it is hard to detect at all. Weird little thing.

May I enquire how old you were at the time? My understanding is that cancer
is much more common the older you are, and much less common the younger you
are. I am 16. Additionally, fibroadenoma are much more common the younger
you are.

Perhaps I'm in the wrong group here - clearly everyone I speak to in this
very helpful forum will have experienced cancer first-hand, so I must
remember any opinions here are naturally biased, but helpful, view.

I am really happy you are doing fine now Happy Christmas.

Amy

tim jackson

There are different degrees of biospy, which all involve poking a sharp
object into the dubious tissue. The fine needle biopsy involve what is
essentially a hypodermic syringe. If the lump is fluid filled then the
fluid can be extracted. A small amount of tissue will adhere to the needle,
and this can be examined microscopically for cancer cells. This method will
detect cancers in about 95% of cases, but does have a significant
false-negative rate, so a negative result is inconclusive.

A "regular" biopsy would be one of a number of different types of core
biopsy, which are done with different commercial instruments. The general
idea is to insert a hollow probe which cuts off a small sample of tissue,
perhaps 1mm diameter and 1cm long. This might use suction to draw the
tissue into the probe and some sort of tiny moving blade inside the probe to
cut it off. Some are automatic, air powered, some surgeons prefer the
control of a manually operated instrument. The net result is a solid and
representative lump of tissue in which any cancer is much more likely to be
seen under the microscope.

The most invasive sort of biopsy is a surgical biopsy which is essentially
the same procedure as a lumpectomy, and involves the surgeon making an
incision and cutting out a sample of tissue.


I don't think you are in the wrong group, and my own experience is strictly
second hand. Indeed everyone in Usenet is biased, and the game in these
support groups is to hear the range of views and arguments, and to use this
in conjunction with your own research to form your own conclusions.

It is particularly difficult for cancer survivors to understand the benefits
of inaction. If more intensive screening were applied to everyone at a
wider range of ages, and surgery were performed at the drop of a hat, apart
from the high cost we would end up with a lot of healthy people getting
radiation-induced cancers or drug-resistant infections, for which they would
not thank us. We need to do all we can at every stage to identify those who
will benefit most from every test or intervention, and to strike a healthy
balance of risks.


Tim Jackson

moi

Thanks. Just one other question: Doesn't putting a needle into a cancerous
lump, then pulling it out through healthy tissue, risk depositing cancerous
cells into 'clean' areas, thus spreading the cancer or allowing it to start
growing 'outside it's sack' whereas it may have been self-contained before?

Also on the NHS is it reasonable to just ask the doctor to make an incision
and remove the lump, as it is mobile and feels like it would just pop out of
a small hole, like a pea in a pod?

Amy


who

tim jackson

This is a subject of occasional discussion. Statistics do not show any
deterioration in outcomes as a result of biopsies, but I have not heard a
convincing explanation.. Maybe it does spread the cancer, but any displaced
cells are soon excised along with the lump. Another view is that metastasis
is not as simple as mechanical detachment of cells from a tumour, there are
genetic changes associated with metastasis, and maybe the cells are not
likely to form a new tumour unless this has happened.


It would be reasonable to ask. Whether the surgeon would think it would be
reasonable to do it, is a matter for conjecture. Why not ask and see?

Tim