Personally, I don't understand this. Back when I was 19 & again at 41 yrs ago I had a fibroadenoma removed. This is how it went. I found the one at 19 and a mammogram found the one at 43. I had an appointment but don't recall who the appointment was with but then I had a needle aspiration. No fluid came out so both were removed under anesthesia surgically within a week or two after pre surgery blood work was done. That was it. It all happened over a period of 3 weeks. The one at 43 I did have a meeting with an oncologist about 'what if it is cancer'. I had no ultrasound, no scans, nothing. It was doctor visit, attempted needle aspiration, pre blood work and removal of lump. So why does it take months now? None of this makes any sense. Why biopsy? Why not do surgery first, remove the lump, send it out for pathology and then the rest? They do everything backwards.

Well AI wrote the reply and it’s a flipping robot.

Probably not. More biopsies are benign, and they are done under local anesthesia. Lumpectomy for known cancer generally involves general anesthesia. If one has invasive breast cancer, the lumpectomy would also include a lymph node biopsy too.