 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Breast Cancer / March 2007microcalcifications: benign indefinitely
had these biopsied five years ago (left breast)....against chest wall and at other places...surgical excision. benign. I have lots of calcs in both boobs. new growth area in last year and a half, did magnification, can't determine, so stereotactic is scheduled for Friday. part of me thinks, well my body has always made a lot of these microcalcs, my mom has them too and they are always benign; another part of me (the part that keeps me from sleeping) thinks "Well, this time they are more than 50% likely to be malignant, and maybe even invasive"...so I research obsessively and drive myself nuts about 40 gauge needles, false negatives, and failed core biopsies (that happened last time; they tried for three hours)....inadequate tissue samples...but chiefly, malignancy. I know some women have multiple benign biopsies for calcs....anyone here had benign and then malignant. ALL of mine are pleomorphic and weird looking; this area is suspect only because of rapid growth in the last year+...radiologist said "I don't know why that would happen.' Well, why NOT, a) if it's cancer or b) if it's just my body making more calc deposits. oh, I'm 53, not premenopausal (hormones same), HDL 70, cholesterol 150, blood pressure low, great triglycerides, exercise every day (apropos of nothing), no babies before age 39. I am confused by your post. Are you referring to what is called Fibrocystic breast disease? Is that the same as microcalcifications? I have had the Fibro stuff in both breasts for years and was told it is benign tissue. The problem with having it is that one has to undergo years of biopsies because the disease causes shadows on Mammograms and they have to do biopsies to make sure it is that and not cancer. It can make it very hard to detect bc if one gets it so it is safer to let them do the biopsies and whatever they have to do to make sure what they are seeing. It adds more stress to one's life if one gets bc because of the additional problem of your Mammograms being harder to understand by the radiologist. Bea 'NO FORWARDS OR SPAM, PLEASE" no. microcalcifications are not fibrocystic breasts. I have both ;-) google can tell you about microcalcs. >I am confused by your post. Are you referring to what is called > Fibrocystic breast disease? Is that the same as microcalcifications? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > 'NO FORWARDS OR SPAM, PLEASE" My breasts always had lots of lumps & calcifications. [The breasts were large & very dense, & I probably should have had a reduction, to better protect my spine.] My breasts started out as hard benign lumps, & the softer breast matter formed around this. I had surgeries in my twenties. And all of my breast lumps were benign, cysts & fibroidenoma/fibroids (sp?), as were the calcifications, until the last time (2000-2001), when they were cancerous. I've heard from doctors, that benign lumps & calcifications can suddenly "go cancerous". ??? But the docs don't seem to know much about it yet. And maybe, some lumps & calcifications are cancerous to begin with. Partly based on past benign lumps, the docs kept refusing me care for my breast cancer for about a year & a half, until the lump was about 6 by 6 by 2 inches, & third stage cancer. Once a doc misdiagnoses it, the other docs here seem to only want, to protect, aid & abet the first doc, .... & to harm the patient into giving up hope of finding any legit med care. Don't let past benign lumps, lull you into a false security, that they will always be & remain benign. Susan Wms, Su_Texas my opinions as I understand it, benign calcs never "turn" malignant. New ones form, and they are separate, pleomorphic or in bigger clusters. why did you have "surgeries" in your 20s? You mean biopsies? I've never had any biopsies for lumps, only for calcs. why would a doctor not want a patient to get legitimate medical care? That sounds odd. what was your treatment for your Stage 3, and how are you doing? I'm so sorry you went through that. <snip lots of stuff> To anyone who isn't familiar with su-texas, please take note that her experiences aren't the same as those of others on this group. Mary > To anyone who isn't familiar with su-texas, please take note that her > experiences aren't the same as those of others on this group. And again, some of her information is fundamentally incorrect. Benign growths can suddenly "go cancerous"? You say you've heard it from doctors, Susan - please provide one reference. Just one. Microcalcifications are calcium deposits - calcium deposits are not and never can be cancer cells, honest. They can't "go cancerous" either ;-) They're left by lotsa things, mostly benign - although some cancers do leave microcalcifications it takes a radiologist to look at the pattern on the the mammogram and recommend further investigation. The Mayo Clinic has a short but good readme on microcalcifications - http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/breast-cancer/AN00049 cheers - >> To anyone who isn't familiar with su-texas, please take note that her >> experiences aren't the same as those of others on this group. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Benign growths can suddenly "go cancerous"? You say you've heard it >from doctors, Susan - please provide one reference. Just one. However, some people, I am one, can develop a cancerous tumour after having had a benign growth, not the same one, though.  SignatureIt's easier to get forgiveness than permission. - Banksy On Mar 29, 6:15 am, x{yz}enophi...@hotmail.com wrote: > >> To anyone who isn't familiar with su-texas, please take note that her > >> experiences aren't the same as those of others on this group. > > >And again, some of her information is fundamentally incorrect. "> >Benign growths can suddenly "go cancerous"? You say you've heard it > >from doctors, Susan - please provide one reference. Just one. "> However, some people, I am one, can develop a cancerous tumour after > having had a benign growth, not the same one, though. > > -- > It's easier to get forgiveness than permission. - Banksy This all may be a question of semantics - apparently the term microcalcification is applied to a SET of symptoms - some of which may be benign and some that may become cancerous: (http://www.healthscout.com/ency/68/761/main.html) "Most breast calcifications are benign. The term microcalcification is often used for calcifications found with malignancy, which are usually smaller, more numerous, clustered, and variously shaped (rods, branches, teardrops). Calcifications associated with benign conditions are usually larger, fewer in number, widely dispersed, and round. In the middle are hard-to-tell calcifications which are often labeled indeterminate." MH >>> To anyone who isn't familiar with su-texas, please take note that her >>> experiences aren't the same as those of others on this group. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > However, some people, I am one, can develop a cancerous tumour after > having had a benign growth, not the same one, though. Well, you can get a cold after breaking a leg :-) Mary >> To anyone who isn't familiar with su-texas, please take note that her >> experiences aren't the same as those of others on this group. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > cheers - Well, you do find growths which have a volume of cells which are not malignant, with a core of cells which are, where a number of changes have been occurring in succession which resulted first in simple overgrowth, and only later also in invasion. For example some incidences of DCIS, although not malignant of itself, can go on to become invasive cancer, although some will not. Likewise genital warts which are non-malignant can presage cervical cancer. So I think its true that most identifiable benign growths have no prospect of turning cancerous, but that there do exist growths that are non-malignant as they are, which are pre-cancerous and have the potential to progress into cancer. Microcalcification is a sign, not a condition. It is the crystalline residue left where cells have died off and can be created by all sorts of scarring and damage. Specifically it tends to form on the boundary of tumours where the tumour is invading and killing surrounding tissue. This gives a shady outline of the tumour rendering it visible on X-ray, and so enables a radiologist to recognise characteristic shapes of cancerous growths. But it is the shape and location of the outline that is critical in diagnosing cancer, not the presence of microcalcifications per se. Tim Jackson thanks, yes, I have read (ad infinitum) about microcalcs; I just went here to see if there was someone who had tons of them (hey, I'm the queen of 'em!) always benign and then had a cluster that was NOT benign. Purely anecdotal input, I was seeking. You can tell I am in not just research mode but (sigh) panic mode.....fear is the enemy. Fear more so than malignancy....wait, fear is malignant! > allan wrote: >> On Mar 29, 6:35 am, "Mary Fisher" <mary.fis...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> To anyone who isn't familiar with su-texas, please take note that her >>> experiences aren't the same as those of others on this group. >> >> And again, some of her information is fundamentally incorrect. >> >> Benign growths can suddenly "go cancerous"? You say you've heard it >> from doctors, Susan - please provide one reference. Just one. >> >> Microcalcifications are calcium deposits - calcium deposits are not >> and never can be cancer cells, honest. They can't "go cancerous" >> either ;-) >> >> They're left by lotsa things, mostly benign - although some cancers do >> leave microcalcifications it takes a radiologist to look at the >> pattern on the the mammogram and recommend further investigation. The >> Mayo Clinic has a short but good readme on microcalcifications - >> >> http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/breast-cancer/AN00049 >> >> cheers - >> >> > Well, you do find growths which have a volume of cells which are not > malignant, with a core of cells which are, where a number of changes > have been occurring in succession which resulted first in simple > overgrowth, and only later also in invasion. For example some > incidences of DCIS, although not malignant of itself, can go on to > become invasive cancer, although some will not. Likewise genital warts > which are non-malignant can presage cervical cancer. > > So I think its true that most identifiable benign growths have no > prospect of turning cancerous, but that there do exist growths that are > non-malignant as they are, which are pre-cancerous and have the > potential to progress into cancer. > > Microcalcification is a sign, not a condition. It is the crystalline > residue left where cells have died off and can be created by all sorts > of scarring and damage. Specifically it tends to form on the boundary > of tumours where the tumour is invading and killing surrounding tissue. > This gives a shady outline of the tumour rendering it visible on > X-ray, and so enables a radiologist to recognise characteristic shapes > of cancerous growths. But it is the shape and location of the outline > that is critical in diagnosing cancer, not the presence of > microcalcifications per se. > > > Tim Jackson |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.