Is it worth it to get a 3-D mammogram?

[Anonymous]

Yes! It is 100% worth it. Any radiologist will tell you so. I thought insurance had to cover it now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's worth it. I was just diagnosed with Stage 1 breast cancer; .7 mm at age 45 with no known high risk factors and my Dr. thinks the 3D mammogram and radiologist saved my life. If it wasn't picked up, who knows what stage it would be at my next mammogram a year later.

I'm not exactly commenting on your situation because your doctor knows best what it was, but there is a myth out there about early detection and breast cancer that it saves lives and generally that is not the case. The aggressive cancers that are going to metastasize will do so early on, so catching it on a mammogram won't alter its course. And the slower growing cancers will not metastasize even if you catch it later. There are those somewhere in between that may benefit from early detection. But often women will say their lives were saved when their cancer was caught at stage I or DCIS and the science, generally, doesn't support that in most cases. This is the crux of the whole mammogram debate.

My personal experience was that the mammogram didn't pick up my cancer, though I had a lump, and it wasn't properly diagnosed until a year later. Obviously I didn't have early detection, and I wasn't diagnosed at stage I. But I survived. had it gone another year I probably would not have. But catching it after I found a lump didn't make a difference.

[Anonymous]

I think it's worth it to get it caught early.
Maybe I won't live longer, but I had a lumpectomy, no lymph nodes removed, radiation and no chemo or estrogen blockers to take. I go days without even thinking about cancer.

[Anonymous]

Yes my sister just had surgery to remove a cancerous cyst found on a routine 3D mammogram - caught early enough tgat it didn’t spread thank goodness

[Anonymous]

So when you guys say 3D mammogram…is that the regular mammogram? After I did my first one they freaked out saying I had multiple masses and had to do another at a different Washington Radiology location. The radiologist freaked out again after the stand up imaging but then did ultrasound and said oh you just have more cysts than most people. They said now that I am in their system and they can compare to earlier mammogram I don’t need to do “diagnostic” version with ultrasound, just regular mammogram. But I’m wondering what I could be missing? Am due to schedule the next one so welcome advice.

[Anonymous]

3D is just a regular mammogram now,

+1 to PP who pointed out thy early detection does not necessarily save your life, it is way more complicated than that. Many/most breast cancers wouldn’t have killed you anyway and many deadly ones aren’t helped by early detection.

But, you should still get your screenings!

[Anonymous]

Yes. Definitely get 3D, and perhaps ultasound or MRI if you have dense breasts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes. Definitely get 3D, and perhaps ultasound or MRI if you have dense breasts.

Curious if most women with dense breasts get ultrasound in addition to 3D mammogram? My doctor has never suggested an ultrasound.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. Definitely get 3D, and perhaps ultasound or MRI if you have dense breasts.

Curious if most women with dense breasts get ultrasound in addition to 3D mammogram? My doctor has never suggested an ultrasound.

My OB orders a mammogram and ultrasound every year because I have very dense breasts. It has only been the last 3 years, though. Prior to that, I had only had an ultrasound once to rule out something that was seen on a routine mammogram years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's worth it. I was just diagnosed with Stage 1 breast cancer; .7 mm at age 45 with no known high risk factors and my Dr. thinks the 3D mammogram and radiologist saved my life. If it wasn't picked up, who knows what stage it would be at my next mammogram a year later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's worth it. I was just diagnosed with Stage 1 breast cancer; .7 mm at age 45 with no known high risk factors and my Dr. thinks the 3D mammogram and radiologist saved my life. If it wasn't picked up, who knows what stage it would be at my next mammogram a year later.

I'm not exactly commenting on your situation because your doctor knows best what it was, but there is a myth out there about early detection and breast cancer that it saves lives and generally that is not the case. The aggressive cancers that are going to metastasize will do so early on, so catching it on a mammogram won't alter its course. And the slower growing cancers will not metastasize even if you catch it later. There are those somewhere in between that may benefit from early detection. But often women will say their lives were saved when their cancer was caught at stage I or DCIS and the science, generally, doesn't support that in most cases. This is the crux of the whole mammogram debate.

My personal experience was that the mammogram didn't pick up my cancer, though I had a lump, and it wasn't properly diagnosed until a year later. Obviously I didn't have early detection, and I wasn't diagnosed at stage I. But I survived. had it gone another year I probably would not have. But catching it after I found a lump didn't make a difference.

What is your point? I’m just like PP with a 3-D mammogram catching an abnormal formation. No lump, and was DCIS but cells were aggressive. I believe a mammogram saved my life as well. Also like PP I did not have a single risk factor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's worth it to get it caught early.
Maybe I won't live longer, but I had a lumpectomy, no lymph nodes removed, radiation and no chemo or estrogen blockers to take. I go days without even thinking about cancer.

If your cancer was deemed aggressive by biopsy, this would not be the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely. It's criminal that it's not the standard now.

It actually is the standard now.

[Anonymous]

I would not. So much xray exposure!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's worth it. I was just diagnosed with Stage 1 breast cancer; .7 mm at age 45 with no known high risk factors and my Dr. thinks the 3D mammogram and radiologist saved my life. If it wasn't picked up, who knows what stage it would be at my next mammogram a year later.

I'm not exactly commenting on your situation because your doctor knows best what it was, but there is a myth out there about early detection and breast cancer that it saves lives and generally that is not the case. The aggressive cancers that are going to metastasize will do so early on, so catching it on a mammogram won't alter its course. And the slower growing cancers will not metastasize even if you catch it later. There are those somewhere in between that may benefit from early detection. But often women will say their lives were saved when their cancer was caught at stage I or DCIS and the science, generally, doesn't support that in most cases. This is the crux of the whole mammogram debate.

My personal experience was that the mammogram didn't pick up my cancer, though I had a lump, and it wasn't properly diagnosed until a year later. Obviously I didn't have early detection, and I wasn't diagnosed at stage I. But I survived. had it gone another year I probably would not have. But catching it after I found a lump didn't make a difference.

This. The evidence around mammograms and survival rates is poorly understood even by physicians, let alone the general population.