Small 'ball' under nipple

Hi, apologies if this is the wrong place to ask, but I'm just looking for advice before I get unnecessarily concerned. I'm 16, female, and today felt a small firm 'ball' the size of a pea under my left nipple. Could this be any number of things, or is it likely to be something of concern? Should I leave it a day/week/month and see if it goes away, or should I hurry to the doctor?

Just not sure what side of 'worried' I should be!

My mother had a small lump removed from her breast a few years back, but then again I'm only 16 so I'm hoping it's nothing like that.

Impartial, constructive advice greatly appreciated

Amy, this is certainly a good place to voice any fears about breast cancer.

Lets say first of all that the chances of having breast cancer at your age are in the region of one in a million. We've just been discussing incidences here, and the published typical US annual rate for age group 15-19 is just
1.5 cases per million population. To put that in perspective, your risk of breast cancer is about one fiftieth of the risk of your being killed on the roads.

It is most likely an infected or blocked duct.

If it appeared in a week and doesn't get any worse then it wouldn't hurt to leave it another week or so to see if it gets better. Sometimes these things come and go with the menstrual cycle, so your doctor may well tell you to leave it until after your next period. If you are worried, if it continues to get worse, or if it gets troublesome, then go and see your doctor.

Did you have this biopsied, Amy?

http://seer.cancer.gov/publications/childhood/ adolescents.pdf

I stand correct the incidence rate for all cancers is 222 per million
- I believe it means out of million 15-19 - 222 of them will have a diagnose of cancer. This report states that breast cancer is rare in this age group.
I would guess saying a 16 year old with breast cancer = 60 year old women being pregnant the age doesn't support either event happening to women. Testicular cancer for men has an incident rate of 22 per million, therefore it should be pursued in a more aggresive fashion.

I am afraid that is the way things are on the NHS, in order to provide prompt service for urgent cases, non urgent things tend to have to wait

cause for concern. If they thought there was any chance it was cancer they would be a lot quicker, believe me.

Right now I am waiting for a tooth to be extracted on the NHS (needs a surgical extraction, but not very urgent) and the waiting list there is also about three months. If I thought it was urgent I could pay for it to be done in a couple of weeks (by the same guy), but then if it was urgent the
NHS would schedule it sooner.

This is a subject of occasional discussion. Statistics do not show any deterioration in outcomes as a result of biopsies, but I have not heard a convincing explanation.. Maybe it does spread the cancer, but any displaced cells are soon excised along with the lump. Another view is that metastasis is not as simple as mechanical detachment of cells from a tumour, there are genetic changes associated with metastasis, and maybe the cells are not likely to form a new tumour unless this has happened.
It would be reasonable to ask. Whether the surgeon would think it would be reasonable to do it, is a matter for conjecture. Why not ask and see?

I was told by the best Imaging clinic in town, which specialises in breast cancer screening that I have fibrous breasts. I was told to drink less coffee and the lump should go away after menopause (which I'm not at yet).
I'm 45 and have been misdiagnosed since I was 42.

It turns out that that was just their expert opinion. Had I known that only a biopsy would have told me for sure, I would have got one.

Don't be fooled with this lumpy breast thing. Apparently mammograms don't work well if you are under 50 years. Even with careful ultrasound as well (they had me there for 2 hours with more and more mammograms and ultrasounds, two years in a row) they came out with the wrong opinion.

Just make sure you 'get it removed', and of course, that they analyse it.

Yes, if the male was 16 and the doctor couldn't feel the same thing the patient felt and the chance at age 16 was near zero percent. I did a search on incidence rate of breast cancer age 25 of less. In Canada under age 25 = 0%...The seer report states a women age 25 has a rate
1:20000...nothing mentioned for under 25. I am glad her Dad is picking up the cost to see a private doc and I hope it is truly nothing..which
I think it is. I understand the English Medical System is based on spending money where they can effect most favorable outcomes and can under the wait. It is a shame that any woman has to wait for the screening test ...but who would you bump ?

As long as they biopsy it, then you know the facts. I was misdiagnosed for 3 years, with lots of mammograms and ultrasounds, so don't settle for a mere opinion like I did.

Mine was 1.2 cm 3 years ago, moves around, firm and painless too. And now there are four.

There are different degrees of biospy, which all involve poking a sharp object into the dubious tissue. The fine needle biopsy involve what is essentially a hypodermic syringe. If the lump is fluid filled then the fluid can be extracted. A small amount of tissue will adhere to the needle, and this can be examined microscopically for cancer cells. This method will detect cancers in about 95% of cases, but does have a significant false-negative rate, so a negative result is inconclusive.

A "regular" biopsy would be one of a number of different types of core biopsy, which are done with different commercial instruments. The general idea is to insert a hollow probe which cuts off a small sample of tissue, perhaps 1mm diameter and 1cm long. This might use suction to draw the tissue into the probe and some sort of tiny moving blade inside the probe to cut it off. Some are automatic, air powered, some surgeons prefer the control of a manually operated instrument. The net result is a solid and representative lump of tissue in which any cancer is much more likely to be seen under the microscope.

The most invasive sort of biopsy is a surgical biopsy which is essentially the same procedure as a lumpectomy, and involves the surgeon making an incision and cutting out a sample of tissue.
I don't think you are in the wrong group, and my own experience is strictly second hand. Indeed everyone in Usenet is biased, and the game in these support groups is to hear the range of views and arguments, and to use this in conjunction with your own research to form your own conclusions.

It is particularly difficult for cancer survivors to understand the benefits of inaction. If more intensive screening were applied to everyone at a wider range of ages, and surgery were performed at the drop of a hat, apart from the high cost we would end up with a lot of healthy people getting radiation-induced cancers or drug-resistant infections, for which they would not thank us. We need to do all we can at every stage to identify those who will benefit most from every test or intervention, and to strike a healthy balance of risks.