Isn't a biopsy supposed to confirm or deny suspicion?

[MissMillie]

My guy had a biospy on a "spot" found on an MRI of his prostate. The doctor called him with the "results" this past week, and they had left me quite confused.

I wasn't on the call. If I had been, I would not have let the doctor get away with telling my guy that they're going to keep an eye on this "suspicious" spot--with a follow up appointment (and possible 2nd MRI) in six months.

???????

Does that mean...

...it's cancerous, but it's in a location where removing it could be more dangerous than keeping an eye on it? (If it's cancer, I can't imagine why there would be a delay removing it unless this is the case) or

...it's "pre-cancerous"?

Somehow it seems to me the point of having a biopsy is to remove the suspicion. My guy got off the phone thinking he has cancer, despite the fact that the doctor never used that term.

I imagine that hearing that the doctor needs to continue to monitor the situation may have spooked my guy (I mean, he thinks he has cancer!) but I'm a little miffed that my guy didn't ask these follow-up questions. Even if my guy assumed that the doctor was telling him he had cancer, why didn't he ask about a 6 month delay in action?

If someone told me I had cancer and that nothing was going to happen for another 6 months, I'd pitch a fit!