Mammogram catching stage 3 bc.

[Anonymous]

i skipped a year due to covid and then a mammo caught my stage 1. i have small dense breasts btw, so i'm so so glad i went for the mammo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely, unfortunately. A best friend of my mom's just hit her 10 years clear, until 6 months later during her yearly "routine" mammogram she has a bad stage 4 diagnosis. Multiple tumors. She literally had a clean CT scan 6 months prior. F cancer!

I don’t understand why she would’ve been getting CT scans after 10 years clear; that’s not common. Maybe it was for something else?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think all the press about “early detection saves lives” gives the false impression that all cancer is curable if just you get screened. When in reality it doesn’t always detect the cancer, and some cancers are so aggressive they are likely fatal even if caught very small. There’s still value in screening, but it is far from a guarantee against dying of breast cancer.

This. Mammo is a screening tool. It’s not a guarantee that all disease will be caught in the early stages. At the population level, it’s beneficial. But it won’t be perfect for every individual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely, unfortunately. A best friend of my mom's just hit her 10 years clear, until 6 months later during her yearly "routine" mammogram she has a bad stage 4 diagnosis. Multiple tumors. She literally had a clean CT scan 6 months prior. F cancer!

I don’t understand why she would’ve been getting CT scans after 10 years clear; that’s not common. Maybe it was for something else?

Maybe it was an MRI rather than a CT?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely, unfortunately. A best friend of my mom's just hit her 10 years clear, until 6 months later during her yearly "routine" mammogram she has a bad stage 4 diagnosis. Multiple tumors. She literally had a clean CT scan 6 months prior. F cancer!

Were the tumors outside of the breast? If they are then it’s automatically stage 4 (I don’t think they use that term anyway.

Where were the tumors?

[Anonymous]

Absolutely and sorry to say that's the cancer that kills you because it's too fast to be able to treat

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think all the press about “early detection saves lives” gives the false impression that all cancer is curable if just you get screened. When in reality it doesn’t always detect the cancer, and some cancers are so aggressive they are likely fatal even if caught very small. There’s still value in screening, but it is far from a guarantee against dying of breast cancer.

100% a friend died of colon cancer at 38 that was so big it blocked his colon. Gastroenterologist I know said that even with screening thar cancer was likely so aggressive it wouldn't have saved him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think all the press about “early detection saves lives” gives the false impression that all cancer is curable if just you get screened. When in reality it doesn’t always detect the cancer, and some cancers are so aggressive they are likely fatal even if caught very small. There’s still value in screening, but it is far from a guarantee against dying of breast cancer.

100% a friend died of colon cancer at 38 that was so big it blocked his colon. Gastroenterologist I know said that even with screening thar cancer was likely so aggressive it wouldn't have saved him.

Yes, this certainly happens but it’s not the norm. So many cases of breast cancer are caught at an early stage due to routine screening. It’s fairly rare for someone to be diagnosed at stage 3-4 when they’ve been getting their regular mammograms. As PP said, they’re not perfect but they’re the best we have.