[penelope]

that is if surgery could have caused the invasive component in my breast.

I originally presented myself to the drs with a small "thickening". I had had a mammo at age 27 which was negative due to the fact my mother died of bc as did her mother. At 35, I went back with this thickening, and had another negative mammo, but this time I asked for an ultrasound. On the ultrasound they decided I should have a biopsy, given family history, but was 99% assured it was a fibradanoma. They went in 6 times to take 6 core samples, each time pulling tissue in and out.

Nope, no luck high grade dcis. I took the pathology to an expert on dcis Dr. Lagios in San Fran who looked it over and said for sure it was just that dcis but suggested I get a mri on a dedicated breast machine, which I did. The mri came back that I had a larger area of dcis but no invasive component. Went on to have a PET/CT, again, small area of dcis no invasive component. And so with that I decided to have a bilateral. I was assured lumpectomy and radiation was enough but after research, and mom who incidently they said was 98% cured, I was uncomfortable with that option.

On the advice to Dr. Lagios, I went to UCSF which is a dedicated breast center. After surgery I had 4.2 cm dcis and a 7mm idc. I have often wondered if the biopsies themselves caused the small cells to be pushed out of the ducts. Once cells are outside of the ducts they are considered invasive. I know that human cells are sticky, per my sister who works extensively in hematology. How can patologists be sure that cells were not manually moved, or pushed through? Especially in the case of someone like me where the idc had the same biological characteristics as the dcis.

I guess I will never know. In the end I poisoned and slashed myself anyway. Took a years worth of herceptin and lost my healthy breast as well. But I have often wondered on this very same subject.