Posts by wanderingcobra76

You can get an RTG scan done at any radiology department—it doesn't really matter if you visit a local Health Center or a major hospital.
Some places require you to schedule an appointment in advance while others allow walk-ins—so, why not just give them a quick call before you head out?

Susan Booth85 said:Could someone please share their thoughts? Is this definitely metastatic spread—where specifically, how does it look, and what should we expect?

My thoughts:
http://www.pohrani.com/f/3Y/zv/sr7EjjC/nal1.jpg

http://www.pohrani.com/f/17/3D/2st4KWGD/nalaz2.jpg

Report:

http://www.pohrani.com/f/3s/rz/4NUMtwOn/nala3.jpg

http://www.pohrani.com/f/U/Bf/3BJf0Vys/nalaz5.jpg

Based on the PET-CT results, there is a high probability of metastasis in the pubic bone—and there is also a suspicious (though less significant) lymph node in the mediastinum.

To be clear, one can never be 100% certain of a metastasis based solely on a PET-CT scan—but unfortunately, what we are seeing here aligns perfectly with how bone metastases typically present in prostate cancer cases.

Are you using daily liners?

I dealt with similar issues myself—plus, I had this constant itching that just wouldn't quit—only to find out it was actually contact dermatitis from the liners (which is surprisingly common, especially for those sensitive to chamomile).
After just two days of ditching the daily liners entirely, all my problems vanished.

Sophia Wells72 said:I’ll just add—during my recent checkup, my doctor actually mentioned that you shouldn't be squeezing those little bumps or anything similar on your breasts. 🤷

It's the exact same rule for your face or anywhere else, really—you shouldn't be squeezing them.
The whole point is to prevent an infection from setting in at the site.
That's really all there is to it.

I am not entirely sure which specific "cavity" you are referring to—when looking at a sinus scan, one has to analyze the maxillary, sphenoid, frontal, and ethmoid sinuses (which is quite a collection of "cavities," wouldn't you say?)
Even if one sinus appears more aerated than its counterpart on the image, that might simply be due to how you were positioned during the scan or perhaps just the unique shape of your bone structure—it doesn't necessarily mean there is an issue with drainage. That is precisely why these scans are ordered—to shed light on those exact variables.

So, unfortunately... yes, it is impossible to give you a definitive answer to your question without seeing the actual imaging.

Hannah Lee10 said:Why wouldn't someone who understands what a "healthy" scan should look like just tell me—say, "it's not bad, but it's not great"? I'm not asking for clinical terminology or an official, definitive diagnosis. This is an image from two years ago, after all—I haven't had a chance to follow up with my doctor yet, so I'm heading back for a new scan soon. And of course, I am not looking for a diagnosis on a forum; I will be seeking that from a medical professional.
I'm really just looking for a general idea—roughly speaking, as I mentioned. It’s the same as when people post their CBC results... they aren't demanding a professional, 100% accurate interpretation; they just want a hint, like, "hey, these values are outside the normal range."
Furthermore, if someone doesn't know enough, then perhaps they shouldn't feel pressured to comment even in that casual way.
🙂
thanks again! 🍻

Transcribing blood work numbers is one thing—numbers are numbers—but as I have stated before, analyzing an X-ray requires doing so exclusively on a negative lightbox or high-resolution monitors if it's a digital file. Why? Because the entire point is to detect subtle nuances in the varying shades of density on the film caused by how the X-rays passed through different tissue densities—and you simply cannot see that in a linked photo.
I am not quite sure how to put this... it is a bit like transcribing a blood test while missing two-thirds of the actual data points and expecting someone to interpret it accurately.

Based on a photo like the one provided, it is impossible to say anything, whether it looks good or bad, because the basic technical requirements necessary for a proper analysis simply haven't been met.

Anyone who would dare to comment on a photo like this one—one that was merely linked online—definitely lacks the necessary expertise. 🤷

Hannah Lee10 said:Hey, thanks for getting back to me first of all! 🙂
I mean, I wasn't actually expecting a professional consultation—not by any means—but rather just... you know... something somewhat superficial and perhaps not even perfectly precise? I just wanted to hear a general idea from someone who might know a little more than I do, since I am a complete amateur here.
Thanks!

Well, isn't it true that the very person who actually knows their stuff would never offer an opinion based solely on a photo like that? 😉

A sinus X-ray—much like any other radiographic image—really needs to be viewed on a dedicated light box or through a specialized diagnostic workstation (especially when dealing with high-resolution digital radiography) to be properly assessed.

So, the link you shared doesn't actually hold any diagnostic weight; I mean, surely no professional would attempt to draw any clinical conclusions based on a display like that, right?

restlessangler said:So how is this "condition" actually treated—and could it possibly be linked to my headaches? Is there even a treatment, or will it just clear up on its own?
And how is it possible that the first scan placed it in the adenohypophysis, while the second one says it's in the posterior part? I don't know much about brain anatomy, but it seems almost impossible to miss the mark that significantly (I mean, I have no idea how large the pituitary gland is, so I don't know how much room there is for error).

Thanks so much for the reply. I'm feeling a bit frustrated because these headaches are getting worse—I've already had to switch my medication since the old ones aren't cutting it anymore—yet I still haven't seen any results after six months..

Well, it's located in the posterior part of the adenohypophysis.
It's unlikely to be related to your headaches—unless, of course, there is a significant hormonal imbalance involved.
Pituitary microadenomas are typically managed if they cause issues due to hormone imbalances (mostly through medication; surgery is usually a last resort if the meds can't stabilize the hormones).
So, you really should go through an endocrinology workup.
To be honest, it is quite probable that the microadenoma is just an incidental finding and has absolutely nothing to do with your headaches.

It's also worth being clear that an MRI doesn't always provide the answer as to *why* someone has headaches; rather, its purpose is to rule out specific underlying causes.

restlessangler said:I had an MRI done back in month 9, and then last week I had this pituitary MRI based on those previous results:

On the pituitary MRI—viewed in three planes, both natively with T1 and T2, and post-contrast—the pituitary gland itself is normally positioned with regular shape and size, though there is a cystic formation measuring 7.7x4.9 mm located posteriorly on the left. The pituitary stalk is regular and shows no resistance.

The pituitary exhibits a homogeneous, normal structure, with the aforementioned cystic formation noted on the native slices at the posterior aspect.

The parasellar and suprasellar regions show no changes. The optic chiasm and cavernous sinus appear normal.

Following the administration of contrast, the pituitary shows homogeneous enhancement, except for the described cystic formation, which does not take up the contrast.

I know I’m just a layperson, but it feels like this scan was totally unnecessary since nothing "new" appears besides the dimensions. Am I wrong here, or did the doctor who wrote this miss the mark? Why even do this second scan if nothing new was discovered—unless I'm right about the cyst being on the posterior side while the first scan placed it in the adenohypophysis area?
I'm honestly so disappointed by all this..
Is there anything actually new in these results?

He didn't miss the mark.
When you undergo a pituitary MRI (or really any specific imaging, for that matter), you have to understand what the goal is—what are we trying to prove or rule out?
If there is a suspicion of a microadenoma, a pituitary MRI is performed specifically to confirm its presence. While a standard brain MRI might pick it up, it can be unreliable because the pituitary is such a tiny structure; therefore, you need a targeted, specialized view. It also allows doctors to see how it relates to surrounding structures, which is absolutely vital if surgery ever becomes necessary.

So, the objectives are to:
1. Describe the pituitary, check for pathological changes, and see how it reacts to contrast— which is described in your report
2. Describe the appearance of the infundibulum— which is described in your report
3. Describe the appearance of the optic chiasm— which is described in your report
4. Describe the appearance of the suprasellar region— which is described in your report
5. Describe the appearance of the cavernous sinus— which is described in your report
6. Note any potential abnormalities in the sphenoid sinus, meninges, etc.
🤷

Nothing "new" was found, but one shouldn't expect something entirely different with a microadenoma—the whole point was simply to confirm what was already seen on the brain MRI, for the reasons I mentioned above.

dustyjackal10 said:Gender - F

Weight - 110 lbs

Mammogram date - 11/16/2011

Reason for testing - Lump in breast

There are a few things I don't quite follow....

Type of exam - mammogram and biopsy

Radiologist's report

......in the left breast, within the upper medial quadrant, there is a shadow of soft tissue density measuring 16 mm with expansive characteristics. An ultrasound and a cytological biopsy of the left breast are recommended if necessary; skin and nipples appear normal on X-ray.

BI-RADS 2,

If an expansive change was noted and an ultrasound plus biopsy were recommended, that shouldn't be a BI-RADS 2—it should be a BI-RADS 4, right?🤷
Has the breast ultrasound and the biopsy of the lesion been performed yet?

My observation: Two days after the mammogram, a massive lump appears on the left side of my neck, and the very next day I head in for a cytological exam of that lump.

Cytology results

Ultrasound findings - puncture of the supra-clavicular mass on the left via ultrasound

Cytology findings - in the received puncture slides from specimen ***** there are a small number of individual, low-differentiated malignant cells with eccentrically placed nuclei (epithelial or lymphatic?), lymphocytes, follicle center cells, and a few histiocytes.

Opinion: Malignant cells found in a lymph node; further evaluation is requested (considering the node will also undergo a pathology exam).

The cytology suggests further workup—has that been done?

In plain English, what I've been told is that there is either a harmless or dangerous cyst in the breast, and a malignant cancer in the lymph node.

Is that a definitive diagnosis or just speculation?
If the steps I previously asked about haven't been taken, then it really is just speculation; you can't provide any kind of prognosis based on that alone.

Even if what was said has been confirmed, the prognosis still depends entirely on the specific type of lymphoma and how far it has spread—and to figure that out, more diagnostic work is absolutely necessary.

Elizabeth Cox83 said:So, here is the situation:

1. Results from September 2009:
- Right breast: In the upper outer quadrant, almost bordering the upper inner quadrant, there is an oval zone with hyperechoic echoes, sharply demarcated from the surrounding tissue, measuring 0.93x0.62 cm (fibroadenoma)

2. Results from February 2011:
- On the right side at the 9 o'clock position, an oval zone of echogenicity similar to fatty tissue is visible, measuring 6.1mm in length

3. Results from November 2011:
- Located on the right between the 12 and 1 o'clock positions is an oval hypoechoic, sharply defined lesion, measuring 8.4x5.2mm, showing posterior acoustic enhancement; primarily consistent with a fibroadenoma

Since we are talking about the same person—obviously—I find myself wondering how this works? It feels like I have a little bit of a fibroadenoma one moment and then I don't... Does "upper outer" and "upper inner" correspond to those 12 and 1 o'clock positions, or am I misinterpreting the notation??

---

Confused, 😕

I actually already replied to you regarding this specific post over in the fibroadenoma discussion thread.

Kate Brooks2 said:Could those of you who understand medical terminology please help me clarify these sentences?

IT LOCALLY INFILTRATES THE COSTAL AND APICAL PLEURA, WITHOUT VISIBLE RIB EROSION IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHILE PERIPHERALLY VISIBLE AMORPHOUS CALCIFICATIONS ARE PRESENT IN THE CRANIAL ASPECTS; IT ALSO ENCOMPASSES AND COMPLETELY STENOSES THE BRONCHUS FOR THE APICAL AND POSTERIOR SEGMENTS OF THE UPPER LOBE.
IN THE ANTERIOR SEGMENT OF THE UPPER LOBE AND THE MIDDLE LOBE ON THE RIGHT, TWO DISCRETE PLATE-LIKE ATELECTASIS ARE VISIBLE.
AND IN THE BASAL SEGMENTS OF THE LOWER LOBES BILATERALLY—MORE PRONOUNCED ON THE RIGHT—THERE ARE BAND-LIKE AND IRREGULAR FIBROTIC CHANGES.
NO FOCAL PATHOLOGICAL LESIONS ARE SEEN IN THE LEFT LUNG. THERE IS NO PRESENCE OF PLEURAL EFFUSION.
IN THE RETROCAVAL MEDIASTINAL FATTY TISSUE, IN THE AORTOPULMONARY WINDOW, TO THE LEFT OF THE AORTIC ARCH, AND SUBCARINAL, LYMPH NODES MEASURE UP TO 17 mm. ON THE RIGHT HILOPULMONARY SIDE, SEVERAL LYMPH NODES MEASURE 11 mm, AND ON THE LEFT HYLOPULMONARY SIDE, LYMPH NODES MEASURE 9 mm.
NO PATHOLOGICALLY ENLARGED LYMPH NODES ARE SEEN IN THE AXILLAE.
NO FOCAL OSTEOLYTIC LESIONS ARE VISIBLE IN THE BONY STRUCTURES SHOWN, BUT SIGNIFICANT DEGENERATIVE CHANGES ARE PRESENT IN THE THORACIC SPINE.

THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH IN ADVANCE

It feels to me as though the very beginning of the report is missing. 😕
However, I am assuming the introduction states there is a tumor process in the right(?) lung?
If that is indeed the case, then that process has involved the pleura and the bronchus, which resulted in a portion of the upper lobe of the right lung not being ventilated—meaning air cannot enter it (which is what they call atelectasis).
The tumor has not spread to the bone structures included in the scan.
The lymph nodes in the mediastinum are enlarged, as are those near the right bronchial tree; given their size, they are likely considered metastatic.

I have written all of this under the assumption that we are dealing with a tumor (infiltrative) process.

When you transcribe findings, would you please be so kind as to write them out in full, without the CAPS LOCK, and with spaces between the sentences? It is quite difficult to follow things when they are formatted this way.

Michael Newman18 said:The left knee shows a narrow joint space fissure near the pinned intercondylar eminence, which points toward moderate osteoarthritis.

Could someone please make sense of this finding for me? (It's from a knee X-ray)

I mean, I know I could just Google it—which usually doesn't help much—but I'm trying to gauge how serious this actually is, what the treatment options look like, and all that sort of thing.

Thanks so much.😍

The report describes some early degenerative changes—though they are quite mild (not exactly surprising for someone in their 20s, really).
Supporting this is the narrowing of the joint space—which happens when cartilage thins out—and the sharpening of the intercondylar eminence doesn't carry much weight on its own in this specific case.
A finding like this really needs to be looked at alongside other factors—like age, weight, symptoms, and a physical exam—to determine if you just need to work on muscle strengthening or if further investigation is required to rule out pathologies that an X-ray might miss.

Casey Rogers47 said:Thank you so, so much!
I'm feeling a little better compared to how I felt this past Sunday.
I was wondering—what actually causes disc protrusion in young people?
I don't have a physically demanding job, I exercise occasionally, I ride my bike, and I'm not carrying any extra weight.

Degenerative changes in the spine can start as early as your 20s😁, so seeing a finding like that in someone in their thirties isn't actually all that unusual.

Genetics plays a massive role here—just as much as lifestyle does.
For instance, inconsistent workouts at the gym might aggravate spinal issues, or perhaps lifting heavy objects with poor posture and things of that nature.

Morgan Jackson3 said:wanderingcobra76, please, can you tell me—when a surgeon removes tissue from the breast, can they actually tell right then and there if it’s malignant? I had two biopsies before the procedure that confirmed there were no epithelial elements and that the tissue was just a fibroadenoma.
My surgeon told me while he was removing the tissue that it looked like fatty tissue and that I shouldn't worry. Seriously???
Also, one of my biopsy samples showed sparse ductal epithelium—does anyone actually know what that means?
Thanks in advance for any help.🙂

When a surgeon removes a tumor, they can often make a preliminary assessment based solely on its appearance—but only if that tumor presents with a classic benign or malignant look, you know? It isn't always that straightforward—is it?
With mastopathy, the tissue looks remarkably similar to normal breast tissue—so, isn't it quite likely that the assessment was based on those similarities?

"Scant ductal epithelium" simply means that the sample contained a few small channels alongside other cells or fluid—it’s essentially just a description of the sample composition. If those specific cells didn't show any signs of atypia, then the phrase carries no clinical weight whatsoever—it is merely the cytologist noting everything they observed within the specimen.

Joshua Williams82 said:The doctor (Mladen Stanec, Oncology) told my mom that there's some kind of process going on that he isn't particularly happy about, though he did mention it might not necessarily be anything catastrophic...🤷

The thing is, they're holding off on the surgery because apparently her heart isn't in the best shape right now. The anesthesiologist won't give the green light until they've run every possible cardiac test.

So, yeah... the surgery seems pretty much a certainty at this point.

Perhaps, upon clinical examination, that formation felt somewhat suspicious to the touch?
It seems we really need to be more vigilant when it comes to monitoring male breast health—wouldn't you agree? One can never be too careful.
That doesn't necessarily mean we're looking at something malignant—it’s just that the doctors can't definitively rule it out until they have the pathology report back after the surgery (unless, of course, the initial diagnostics strongly suggest it's benign).

Joshua Williams82 said:My dad is tall and skinny, so his chest is pretty much completely flat 😁

It really does feel easy enough to just reach out and touch, especially since he's right there next to me... I guess maybe what you're talking about is actually true. 🙂

If the mass is located on the side, then it isn't gynecomastia.
It could, however, be something like a myofibroblastoma, a glandular cell tumor, an inclusion cyst, or perhaps a leiomyoma—all of which are benign tumors (and, interestingly enough, they occur much more frequently than breast cancer). 😉

Joshua Williams82 said:What can I even say? I’m honestly at a loss here..🤷

He noticed a lump—it isn't exactly tiny, if I recall correctly; it feels a bit larger, though soft and somewhat oblong in shape—and went to see his doctor, who then referred him over to the Oncology department.
They told him he could choose whether or not to have surgery, essentially leaving the decision entirely up to him (😕). It turns out it might be benign, though nobody has actually given him a definitive diagnosis yet (since he hadn't even had the specific tests required to confirm anything such as that).

So now, he's sitting in the hospital. They ran blood work, urine tests, and yesterday they did a mammogram, an ultrasound, and a biopsy.... and the doctors? They aren't saying a single word....
They won't tell him if things look good or bad, or even if a specific result points toward one thing or another...🤷

As for gynecomastia, that’s not what this is; he doesn't have enlarged breasts, just this one specific lump....

By definition, gynecomastia is actually the presence of > 2cm of breast tissue under the nipple in a man who isn't overweight.
Which means you don't necessarily have enlarged breasts; gynecomastia can manifest simply as a lump on one side.
Enlarged breasts caused by fat accumulation are actually called pseudogynecomastia—though, truth be told, most doctors tend to confuse the two terms.
It is usually soft (though it can be firm) and can be slightly tender to the touch.

If they initially suggested he might not need surgery, they likely suspect it is benign—but keep in mind, they said that before any actual diagnostic testing was completed, right?
😕

I'm not quite sure; I hope this helps a little.
I am really hoping the results come back positive.🙂

Joshua Williams82 said:They rushed him straight into the hospital and told him surgery was necessary before they even ran a single diagnostic test.
I found that pretty strange myself, because I know doctors can usually tell what they're looking at fairly quickly... 🤷

The mammogram and ultrasound results haven't actually come back yet, but they told him today he needs to head back in for another ultrasound...🤷

My dad isn't suspicious of anything; he honestly thinks they’re just keeping him there for no reason and that whatever this is, it's definitely benign...
We, on the other hand, aren't feeling particularly optimistic. We're bracing for the worst, especially since everything feels so secretive and nobody seems willing to give us a straight answer (everyone just hedges and claims they don't know anything until after the surgery is done 😕)....

Honestly, I find this kind of behavior from medical staff quite baffling.
If they haven't even received the official mammogram and ultrasound reports yet, why on earth are they already planning a surgical procedure? Are there other indicators of a malignant condition—perhaps abnormal blood work, elevated tumor markers, or metastatic lymph nodes that would necessitate finding the primary tumor? No; if that were the case, I suspect you would have mentioned it already.

It is quite common for men experiencing breast issues to actually be dealing with gynecomastia, which is a benign condition.
Though... it is possible they spoke with the radiologist who performed the ultrasound and mammogram and have already received a verbal report.🤷

Joshua Williams82 said:They started him on IV fluids yesterday (he’s actually been in the hospital since Monday), but he hasn't received the test results back yet.
He’s scheduled for surgery tomorrow.

Typically, it takes about two to three days to get cytology results back from a spinal tap.
Why on earth would they plan an operation before even seeing those findings?
I mean—if the puncture results aren't going to influence the decision, then why bother performing the procedure in the first place? 😕

Sometimes I find surgeons—with their specific diagnostic algorithms—to be somewhat opaque, if you know what I mean. 🤷
What were the findings on the mammogram and ultrasound?