Now I'm confused. Why would one need a lumpectomy instead of a needle biopsy? I thought that was to determine whether the suspicious areas were malignant. Are you saying a person should have the suspicious material removed always? I'm having a hard enough time getting the insurance company to pay the oncologist, without them refusing to pay for surgeries that don't show malignant. Maybe I'm missing something here. Also, I'm surprised that my oncologist of 30 years didn't know/suggest this. Actually my thinking was, "take them both off". If they have a tendancy to form malignancies, then get rid of them. But my MD and the oncologist surgeon both advised against it.
I can see how pushing a needle/probe into malignant tissue and begin cutting, that some of that tissue could be loosened and that could encourage the cancer to move elsewhere. (But you understand, I know nothing but what I "think" I have been told by my MD who had breast cancer herself 7 years ago, and my oncologist.) Are you aware of the Sentinal Lymph Node biopsy? It evidently is a rather recent injection that traces the cancers that have moved to the lymph area to make the surgeons more sure of where it has gone and if.