Fibrous breast lump in 36th week

I've just had an ultrasound to check on a 3.5 inch wide oval lump that
I discovered only four days ago, and the result is that I'm due for a
biopsy in two weeks' time.

I'm 36 weeks pregnant, and 35 years old, and from what I understand
this is likely to be a benign mass of tissue called a fibroadenoma that
isn't entirely uncommon in pregnancy.

I was curious if others have been in a similar situation and how this
might have affected breastfeeding.

Thanks!

I've just had an ultrasound to check on a 3.5 inch wide oval lump that
I discovered only four days ago, and the result is that I'm due for a
biopsy in two weeks' time.

I'm 36 weeks pregnant, and 35 years old, and from what I understand
this is likely to be a benign mass of tissue called a fibroadenoma that
isn't entirely uncommon in pregnancy.

I was curious if others have been in a similar situation and how this
might have affected breastfeeding.

ok, I haven't been in this situation, but I do wonder if going for biopsy
really is the right thing, I do know a little bit about breast cancer, my
mum had it at 43 and I had a lump myself whilst breastfeeding. Before going
for biopsy I would want stats, how likely is it given these tests that it is
in fact malignant? (I'm expecting very very low) and what are the risks of
the biopsy at this stage in pregnancy, particularly given you will be
breastfeeding soon (I'm expecting higher), then you can make a much better
decision as to whether to have the test.

Cheers

Anne

I had a fibroadenoma removed years before I got pregnant, one of the
reasons being that pregnancy can start them growing and they can get
quite large, and one would rather not operate on a pregnant
near-lactating woman, given the choice. I think you may have just time
to get it out and healed by the time you give birth, and it can be done
under straight local anesthetic (I had mine done that way, as sedation
has weird effects on me that I don't like at all).

I did have mastitis in that breast more than once, and it never seemed
to produce quite as much milk, so it *may* have been affected, either
by whatever circumstance produced the tumor, or by scar tissue, I don't
know. However I still had plenty of milk for my twins, and many women
find that one breast produces more than the other, so perhaps it was
exactly the same as it would have been anyhow, who knows?

Hope all goes at least as well with you as it did with me. Keep us
posted.

Helen

wrote:

I had a fibroadenoma removed years before I got pregnant, one of the
reasons being that pregnancy can start them growing and they can get
quite large, and one would rather not operate on a pregnant
near-lactating woman, given the choice. I think you may have just time
to get it out and healed by the time you give birth, and it can be done
under straight local anesthetic

It depends on the type of biopsy; if a fine-needle, no anaesthetic is
needed at all. But I can't understand why anyone would wait two weeks to
schedule an FNA for a woman 36 weeks pregnant, as it's a simple office
procedure, and better to give it a good chance to heal well before
labour/lactation.

Lara

I had a fibroadenoma removed years before I got pregnant, one of the
reasons being that pregnancy can start them growing and they can get
quite large, and one would rather not operate on a pregnant
near-lactating woman, given the choice. I think you may have just time
to get it out and healed by the time you give birth, and it can be done
under straight local anesthetic

It depends on the type of biopsy; if a fine-needle, no anaesthetic is
needed at all. But I can't understand why anyone would wait two weeks to
schedule an FNA for a woman 36 weeks pregnant, as it's a simple office
procedure, and better to give it a good chance to heal well before
labour/lactation.

it occured to me later that if it can be delayed then does it need to be
done at all? I would have thought this is a type of lump you would remove
regularly, particularly during pregnancy or lactation. I've looked for info
on the internet, but it's not clear, it mentions it not needing to me
removed if small, but then also suggests in young women it may be good to
remove before pregnancy, i.e. before it enlarges as they are hormonally
sensitive. What I can't find is any standard for what is the best route in
pregnancy, or breastfeeding. I do know in breastfeeding that it's generally
thought best to leave things alone, they will drain liquid from an abcess of
cyst, but with solid lumps, it seems to standard to exclude cancer, then do
nothing. With my lump, it was initially expected to contain liquid, I
presume due to it's size and sudden appearance, but was found to be solid,
but infected, it took a lot of antibiotics to clear the infection and the
lump reduced in size, leaving a thickened area of breast tissue which is
very suseptible to plugged ducts.

Cheers

Anne

I can't understand why anyone would wait two weeks to
schedule an FNA for a woman 36 weeks pregnant, as it's a simple office
procedure, and better to give it a good chance to heal well before
labour/lactation.

They tried to fit me in sooner but this is a huge hospital and I guess
there was no spot available before the 23rd. They promised to call if
anything comes up before then.

I was told they would use novocaine locally.

What I can't find is any standard for what is the best route in
pregnancy, or breastfeeding. I do know in breastfeeding that it's generally
thought best to leave things alone, they will drain liquid from an abcess of
cyst, but with solid lumps, it seems to standard to exclude cancer, then do
nothing.

Yeah, I was told they'd do the biopsy and if cancer is excluded they'd
leave it alone till I'm ready to have it removed (if I want to, ie).
Given that it's quite large, has appeared all of a sudden, and that
it's not impossible for it to get larger still, I'm guessing I'll
probably want it out eventually.

In ,
Lara wrote:

wrote:
*
* I had a fibroadenoma removed years before I got pregnant, one of the
* reasons being that pregnancy can start them growing and they can get
* quite large, and one would rather not operate on a pregnant
* near-lactating woman, given the choice. I think you may have just time
* to get it out and healed by the time you give birth, and it can be done
* under straight local anesthetic
*
*It depends on the type of biopsy; if a fine-needle, no anaesthetic is
*needed at all. But I can't understand why anyone would wait two weeks to
*schedule an FNA for a woman 36 weeks pregnant, as it's a simple office

I can't figure why anyone would wait two weeks to schedule any kind of
biopsy for a woman 36 weeks pregnant. It's not like the risk of her going
into labor is going to DECREASE as time goes by.

Even if they were going to do an ultrasound guided tru-cut under local
anesthetic, I don't see waiting two weeks. Better to do it now, give it
more time to heal before the baby comes.

If I were in the OP's position, I would insist on immediate biopsy if I
felt biopsy were indicated.

-h.
--
Hillary Israeli, VMD
Lafayette Hill/PA/USA/Earth
"Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is
too dark to read." --Groucho Marx

If I were in the OP's position, I would insist on immediate biopsy if I
felt biopsy were indicated.

yeah, it doesn;t seem right, the biopsy is presumably to check it's not
cancer which should be done there and then, I had really excellent treatment
for my lump, with a ultrasound investigaion being done on it on Chritmas Day

Anne

Yeah, I was told they'd do the biopsy and if cancer is excluded they'd
leave it alone till I'm ready to have it removed (if I want to, ie).
Given that it's quite large, has appeared all of a sudden, and that
it's not impossible for it to get larger still, I'm guessing I'll
probably want it out eventually.

I suspect that it could be semi problematic during lactation, but could
decrease in size by not being pregnant, you may go through th rest of the
pregnancy, then lactation anf for it to be much smaller, or even have
vanished.

Cheers

Anne