Apparently the "needle aspiration" biopsy showed it to be a malignant spindle cell tumor "i.e., hemangiopericytoma".  The first vet recommended amputation. The second vet said he would remove the tumor and see if it grows back. "Maybe in 2 years, maybe in 2 weeks". The first vet then agreed with that and said she changed her mind about the amputation and would try to remove the tumor instead. I balked for past five months simply because it sounds like a debulking would risk complications and possibly aggravate the tumor? But since it is getting bigger maybe a debulking is necessary at this point. Thanks so much for replies here. Any more would again be appreciated.

Thank you for explaining the difference. I wonder why neither vet recommended biopsy to determine the exact cancer involved. If either of the two you mention are more aggressive than hemangiopericytoma then that would make a huge difference in how to proceed. The second vet didn't even bother to look at the pathologist report from the needle aspiration. Simply said he would try and remove it and see if it grow back.  Maybe now debulking would prolong the risk of the cancer spreading if it's something other than "locally invasive" hemangio-pericytoma. Just go through with amputation to reduce risk of it spreading if it hasn't already? I'm kind of angry at the moment neither vet bothered to determine the cancer specifically.