[Guest]

My 2 year old daughter was supposedly misdiagnosed with malignant sarcoma. the lump in her shoulder was soft, but we insisted on a biopsy after an unltrasound showed a 2.2cm mass with a blood flow near a muscle. they thought it was connected to the muscle at first. THe FNA extracted a few cells and the pathologist spoke to soon. A cat scan the next day didnt show a definable mass and they were "optimistic". you could clealry see material in her shoulder covering fat, but they wanted to do another ultrasound to confirm. The ultrasound looked completely different on this tuesday as it did on sunday (ie no definition or determinable margins, blood supply was still there, but didnt appear to be attached to the muscle, as they saw separation) and thus, they feel they misdiagnosed and apologized.. an mri is scheduled under sedation for next week. My question is whether we should be concerned still? how reliable is the cat scan? in other words, would it have found a 2 cm tumor in her shoulder area if it was there? how would a cyst or benighn material appear differently under a cat scan ? why do we have to also do an MRI? how can a lump just go away? they think the needle biopsy aspirated the lump and it began to go away, but has now reoccured. i am hoping it is just something refilling? but am confused and dont know who or what to trust. we thought she had cancer. now dont, but wont no for sure until the mri? pls help. What does this sound like to you!!?

[Guest]

You must understand that without being able to review the images, I could not comment on your particular case.
I can say this, however. MRI is generally considered a much better modality for imaging soft tissue structures. This is especially true when it is used in conjunction with CT. But if I had to choose one or the other, I would choose MRI.
[quote] My 2 year old daughter was supposedly misdiagnosed with malignant sarcoma. the lump in her shoulder was soft, but we insisted on a biopsy after an unltrasound showed a 2... [/quote]