Reply to Mammograms in 40s

Forum Index » Health and Medicine

Reply to "Mammograms in 40s"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Some medical groups recommend waiting til 45 or 50 if you don’t have risk factors. Most of the physicians I know say we are massively over screening and it isn’t resulting in better outcomes but most women I know who are not physicians are going every year.[/quote]

How would it not result in better outcomes to find the cancer early on mammogram?[/quote]

The over simplified answer is that slow growing cancers grow so slowly you don’t need to catch them all that early, and the fast growing aggressive cancers tend to kill you regardless of when you catch them. [/quote]

This is very simplified. Catching breast cancer early often means no chemotherapy. That is a huge benefit. [/quote]

It's complicated because getting treated for breast cancer that could have stayed early stage for a long time can also cause issues. And not just in terms of anxiety and cost, but cancer treatments are bad for you if you don't need them (some of them cause heart problems, for instance). Of course, on the individual level, you don't know what would have happened had you taken a different decisions, but starting annual mammograms at age 40 for women without additional risk factors or symptoms is actually a hotly debated topic among scientists in the field. It is not a settled issue in any way.[/quote]

But there are data, which should inform population level recommendations. [/quote]

Yes, there are data, and they do inform recommendations. But scientists still disagree over the interpretation of those data. And actually running trials to look on an impact of screening procedures on mortality is extremely complicated and not really doable for breast cancer, hence modeling etc also being used. For instance, you would probably have to randomize tens of thousands of women to get mammograms every year starting at 40, every other year starting at 40, every every starting at 50, every other year starting at 50 etc. As PP mentioned, one question is: Would a slow growing cancer caught by mammogram today also have been caught in a treatable stage by a mammogram 1-2 years from now? Many women also get diagnosed with stage 2-3 cancer by mammogram, it's successfully treated in the short to medium term, but then comes back after a few years at metastatic. Did their treatment now actually help extend their lives?

I'm not saying mammograms are bad, I'm just saying that, as a person without many risk factors, I'm in no rush to schedule my mammogram, having turned 40 this year. I'll do it this year or next, but I'm pretty sure an annual one is not necessary for me.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics