I had used this study as a reference for my comments.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24866542/
It is, as I recall, at least fairly representative of the general literature on this topic (though of course there are lots of variations). The link you included appears to be a seminar deck, but I seem to recall reviewing it in the past, and my vague recollection is that it was helpful.
Because we cancer patients nowadays get direct access to radiologist and pathologist reports, we are put in a bit of a dilemma: If you don’t research extensively, you have no idea what the report means. However, radiologists and pathologists are not writing for the patient, but instead for the surgeons and/or oncologists, insurers, and the file. So even if you do research, some aspects of tone and motivations can be opaque to us patients, which can lead to misunderstandings and unnecessary anxiety. The doctors whom you talk to—usually surgeons or oncologists—have as part of their job the task of interpreting the sometimes cryptic language of radiologists and pathologists for us. So to me, the best courses are either to ignore the precise wording of the report and just listen to your doctors (there’s a lot of trusting there, though) or to “trust but verify,” which suits my personality—research, then ask your doctors the best questions you can, and reach a degree of comfort based on all that info.
Here, your doctor interpreted the result and language for you, and that was reassuring, which seems to align with the studies/literature. The 3-month scan should also be reassuring—they aren’t worried, but they are being careful. But ultimately, while I think you can be reassured here, your comfort level is up to you.