I understand that the "slam-o-gram" can burst a small tumor and make it spread.

Isn't this why physicians don't do this in Europe?
No financial profits.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Mammogram radiation is a known cause of cancer"?? Really?
I've never heard/read that the radiation in a mammogram has been proven to cause cancer.

Use some common sense. Radiation causes cancer.

Interetingly, particularly in those with the BRCA mutation.

Well that's particularly disturbing

Anonymous wrote:Just being female of a certain age does not convince me to ask for radiation.

I agree. I Now go every two years and do monthly exams, but might stop mammography altogether. I've watch a friend go through six biopsies on the same breast (now mangled) always finding fibrous tissue, but when she says 'why continue to pursue' she gets a snide 'you don't want to leave your kids motherless, do you?' The psychological trauma has been huge.

And then there is the varying nature of cancer itself. I have three friends with breast cancer. all found lumps. All are still alive. One had a family history - her mother is in her 80s and still alive.

Research has shown that it's the nature of the cancer that's the key. Detecting a tumor that is destined to kill you earlier - early detection and treatment of that tumor has not affected death rates; you just know earlier. Not sure that's a good thing.

The research beng targeted at unlocking the key to which tumors will behave and which won't is the real key.

Just being female of a certain age does not convince me to ask for radiation.

Anonymous wrote:The conclusion about over detection is only correct if the actual rate of occurrence of invasive, life threatening breast cancer has been steady. That seems to be an assumption by the researchers. Maybe early detection is saving more lives than recognized because cancer death rates would otherwise be climbing.

Does anyone know how likely this might be? I have no idea, but our world has become so much more toxic in the last few decades. The rates for many other diseases have been climbing, especially autoimmune.

It's a lot like projected budgets in politics. Having costs come in under projections have not saved actual money. Much like a dress on sale. You haven't saved, unless you didn't buy it at all.

What they DO know is the number of deaths from breast cancer is much lower than the rate of false positives from mammogram. Sonograms lead to more biopsies, as do MRIs. 3-D is showing more promise, but it also leads to the detection of lesions that might never have needed treatment. Chemo and radiation is nothing to sneeze at. And then there is the lasting emotional trauma of callbacks and subsequent testing.

The conclusion about over detection is only correct if the actual rate of occurrence of invasive, life threatening breast cancer has been steady. That seems to be an assumption by the researchers. Maybe early detection is saving more lives than recognized because cancer death rates would otherwise be climbing.

Does anyone know how likely this might be? I have no idea, but our world has become so much more toxic in the last few decades. The rates for many other diseases have been climbing, especially autoimmune.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Mammogram radiation is a known cause of cancer"?? Really?
I've never heard/read that the radiation in a mammogram has been proven to cause cancer.

Use some common sense. Radiation causes cancer.

Interetingly, particularly in those with the BRCA mutation.

Anonymous wrote:"Mammogram radiation is a known cause of cancer"?? Really?
I've never heard/read that the radiation in a mammogram has been proven to cause cancer.

Use some common sense. Radiation causes cancer.

Anonymous wrote:The "trick" is that once a non-invasive cancer is found there is no (ZERO) way of knowing if there is also an invasive cancer lurking within the breast. Or if that non-invasive cancer will progress to an invasive form down the line. And if it does, will it be found in time? If you have dense breast tissue no amount of diagnostic testing can give you any peace of mind that nothing else is in there.

Signed -
BC Survivor

And thus, many women are being over treated. Not good

PP is correct. Long term studies have shown no decline in death rate. That's key

Anonymous wrote:The "trick" is that once a non-invasive cancer is found there is no (ZERO) way of knowing if there is also an invasive cancer lurking within the breast. Or if that non-invasive cancer will progress to an invasive form down the line. And if it does, will it be found in time? If you have dense breast tissue no amount of diagnostic testing can give you any peace of mind that nothing else is in there.

Signed -
BC Survivor

It is not true that there aren't screening tools for dense breasts. Breast MRIs work perfectly fine on dense breasts and 3-D ultrasounds are pretty good as well.

Mammograms do have radiation and carry a small risk of cancer. The newer mammograms less so than the old. Its all cost-benefit. At younger ages they are going to catch fewer cancers to make that risk worthwhile.

Really all of these screening tools are inadequate since most cancers that will metastasize have done so before they are detected and the ones that are slower growing won't metastasize for a very long time and can be caught in time when you feel them yourselves. I'm a breast cancer survivor myself and I still get mammograms (and breast MRIs) but I don;t put a lot of faith in them/

The "trick" is that once a non-invasive cancer is found there is no (ZERO) way of knowing if there is also an invasive cancer lurking within the breast. Or if that non-invasive cancer will progress to an invasive form down the line. And if it does, will it be found in time? If you have dense breast tissue no amount of diagnostic testing can give you any peace of mind that nothing else is in there.

Signed -
BC Survivor

"Mammogram radiation is a known cause of cancer"?? Really?
I've never heard/read that the radiation in a mammogram has been proven to cause cancer.

The article, is here and comes from BMJ:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150304075418.htm


One of the more interesting points made:

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women worldwide. Early trials reported that screening reduced the risk of dying from breast cancer by around 30% in women over 50 and led to publicly funded mammography screening programs in many countries in the 1980s and 90s.
Although this has led to large increases in detection of early breast cancer, rates of advanced cancer have declined only slightly or remained relatively stable, suggesting that mammography screening is detecting low risk or non-progressing breast cancer that would never have become life threatening.
In the NHS screening programme, 99% of women with screen detected breast cancer undergo surgery and around 70% also have radiotherapy and hormone therapy. If around 20% of these breast cancers are overdiagnosed, then about 20% of these women are undergoing treatments to "cure" a disease which they would never had had without screening, explains Barratt.


While I did yearly mammograms, I will probably heed the new recommendations of going every two years, one, because mammogram radiation is a known cause of cancer and two, because of the high false-postive rates, and worse, the possibility of invasive treatments for something that might never have been significant in the first place.

With 3-D imaging now here, it's beginning to be pushed on women as 'cutting edge', when in reality, it has its own issues.


Bottom line - everyone has to make their own decisions based on their comfort level.