> Hi All,
>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> Regards,
> Sapn
The fact that they have remained unchanged suggests that they are not
malignant. It may be that the doctors, rather than ruling out
malignancy, are taking the view that any growth is so slow that there is
no harm in maintaining a 'watching brief'.
Is there any particular reason why you want to question their decision?
I don't see any particular need for a second opinion here, but if you
aren't happy with your team, then by all means find another opinion.
Tim Jackson
s - 24 Nov 2004 03:08 GMT
Many thanks for taking time to reply. I think I will try to take it
easy and possibly go in for another mammogram in six months time. By
then, I will have completely weaned off my toddler and my breasts will
settle into a more normal state. I am concerned with the new (1 yr)
nodule which the doctors feel might shrink on its own. The 1.3 cm mass
concerns me a lot. If everything was just the same my last mammogram
reported "normal" and this time it was "no significant risk of
abnormalities" - a point of concern again.
WISH ALL OF YOU A VERY HAPPY THANKSGIVING, in advance!
Regards,
Sapn
> The fact that they have remained unchanged suggests that they are not
> malignant. It may be that the doctors, rather than ruling out
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Tim Jackson
Guess Who - 24 Nov 2004 04:19 GMT
.
> WISH ALL OF YOU A VERY HAPPY THANKSGIVING, in advance!
>
> Regards,
> Sapn
I think the fact the ultrasound didn't show anything is a good thing.
Mammograms are not accurate in young women.
Pet scans have been proven to be more effective in young women. If you are
not happy with these docs a second opinion wouldn't hurt.