Anonymous wrote:the most surprising thing to me in her story is that the mri missed a tangerine-size tumor. not surprising the mammogram missed it unfortunately, but for the mri after to have missed this, and not to be found until mastectomy surgery?

That’s highly unusual. MRIs are more likely to miss something tiny - not tangerine-sized. Unless it was lobular.

the most surprising thing to me in her story is that the mri missed a tangerine-size tumor. not surprising the mammogram missed it unfortunately, but for the mri after to have missed this, and not to be found until mastectomy surgery?

It's hard to wrap my brain around Olivia's story. Why would you have your first screening at 43 if you've always gone to the doctors and were high risk? I've been in enhanced surveillance since I was 25 even though my mom was 44 when she was diagnosed. They take it seriously and offer MRI every 6 months. Then you move to alternating MRI and mammogram in your 30's. Anyone with even one relative with breast cancer would have had a first screening way before 40. My assessment score is 10 points lower than Olivia's and I know I'd be sent packing with a negative mammogram even with my risks. What on earth made her number increase by that much? I know it's not having a baby at 40 because my sister had her child at 40 and her score isn't as high as Olivia's either even with all of our other risk factors. They might have kept my already existing screening schedule but they wouldn't order an urgent MRI after a clear mammogram and negative BRCA test.

I have too much direct experience with this to not ask these questions. How does someone with the highest assessment score I've personally seen have her first screening as late as 43? Why would anyone keep pursuing a diagnosis after a negative BRCA test and negative mammogram? It doesn't make any sense.

Anonymous wrote:I'll read the article. I'm curious what led her to be checked again two months later.

I didn't realize mammograms missed breast cancer.

They miss 20% of breast cancers. Mammograms have difficulty detecting cancer if you have dense breasts. It can also be hard to detect depending on the type of breast cancer. Lobular breast cancer grows in long strands, so it is difficult to spot with a mammo, MRIs are more accurate for anyone high risk.

I'll read the article. I'm curious what led her to be checked again two months later.

I didn't realize mammograms missed breast cancer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did she do IVF to get pregnant? Isn't there an increased risk of hormonal cancers like breast because of IVF treatments?

I also have breast cancer. This is a hot topic in some of the breast cancer groups. A lot of women, when they’re diagnosed, want to know what they did to cause it. And I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a link to IVF. But I will tell you, as a young, healthy woman who breastfed, exercised, conceived naturally, doesn’t drink, doesn’t smoke, etc…. Sometimes it’s a crapshoot. My tumor was hormone negative (meaning hormones weren’t the problem in my case).

NP here - hi PP, I am in Bethesda and was just diagnosed with BC a few weeks ago. If you have any good local resources, FB groups, support groups, could you please share with me. I am hormone positive by the way, and tumors are in my left breast. Never smoked, took drugs, hardly ever drink etc, but did IVF and did get covid waxed multiple times.

NP. Why do you mention the covid vax? Is there a correlation?

I talked to a friend's friend, who also has BC and she swears that she got it after her two covid vax......who knows....I got five Pfizers vaxs...

Fake news

Didn’t she have breast enhancements? Perhaps why mammogram didn’t catch it.

There's a new story in People
https://people.com/olivia-munn-terrifying-breast-cancer-diagnosis-double-mastectomy-medically-induced-menopause-exclusive-8634489

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did she do IVF to get pregnant? Isn't there an increased risk of hormonal cancers like breast because of IVF treatments?

I also have breast cancer. This is a hot topic in some of the breast cancer groups. A lot of women, when they’re diagnosed, want to know what they did to cause it. And I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a link to IVF. But I will tell you, as a young, healthy woman who breastfed, exercised, conceived naturally, doesn’t drink, doesn’t smoke, etc…. Sometimes it’s a crapshoot. My tumor was hormone negative (meaning hormones weren’t the problem in my case).

NP here - hi PP, I am in Bethesda and was just diagnosed with BC a few weeks ago. If you have any good local resources, FB groups, support groups, could you please share with me. I am hormone positive by the way, and tumors are in my left breast. Never smoked, took drugs, hardly ever drink etc, but did IVF and did get covid waxed multiple times.

NP. Why do you mention the covid vax? Is there a correlation?

I talked to a friend's friend, who also has BC and she swears that she got it after her two covid vax......who knows....I got five Pfizers vaxs...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did she do IVF to get pregnant? Isn't there an increased risk of hormonal cancers like breast because of IVF treatments?

I also have breast cancer. This is a hot topic in some of the breast cancer groups. A lot of women, when they’re diagnosed, want to know what they did to cause it. And I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a link to IVF. But I will tell you, as a young, healthy woman who breastfed, exercised, conceived naturally, doesn’t drink, doesn’t smoke, etc…. Sometimes it’s a crapshoot. My tumor was hormone negative (meaning hormones weren’t the problem in my case).

NP here - hi PP, I am in Bethesda and was just diagnosed with BC a few weeks ago. If you have any good local resources, FB groups, support groups, could you please share with me. I am hormone positive by the way, and tumors are in my left breast. Never smoked, took drugs, hardly ever drink etc, but did IVF and did get covid waxed multiple times.

NP. Why do you mention the covid vax? Is there a correlation?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think ultrasound is considered as effective an imaging technique as mammograms. Otherwise, and especially since they’re much cheaper to perform than mammograms, they would be the standard of care, or at least included in screening protocols for high risk women. But they aren’t. If you’re high risk, annual mammo plus annual MRI with contrast is what’s standard.

It’s interesting, because whenever I get callbacks (because they want additional imaging), the second round is an ultrasound, not an MRI. And when I had a lump, they went straight to an ultrasound, not a mammogram. Are they cheaping out on me? Or are they just seeing what they need to see using a combo of these two things?

I just went looking for the answer to your very good question. Looks like the reason is, mammograms can catch very small calcifications (earliest signs of cancer), ultrasounds can’t. But ultrasounds can distinguish between simple cysts and cancers, which mammograms can’t. Hence their use as a follow-up tool.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have dense breasts and have been asking for ultrasound for a decade because I hate mammograms so much but no one will ever approve them. I just skip the mammograms mostly because they cause so much pain.

I noticed in the article that it said this type of breast cancer is typically very slow growing….is that the medical justification for not making this standard of care? Basically that it will show in a mammogram before it gets dangerous?

I wrote this in the other Olivia Munn post in the Health & Medicine forum but it got locked so I'm sharing again here.

I just wanted to chime in for those who are worried they aren't wealthy enough for the proper screening.

I am a big fan of Herscan, which travels up and down the east coast doing affordable breast ultrasound screenings. I have dense breasts and have not always had doctors who were proactive with US screenings.

My cancer was diagnosed via Herscan after a clear mammo and it was incredibly accurate (caught the cancer in 2 different quadrants). So I feel I need to do my part to advocate for ultrasounds for dense breasts, and Herscan if your insurance isn't covering it or your doctor won't order it.

thank you for sharing. sometimes beyond all the snipe and viper, DCUM comes through with gems such as this. much appreciative for this information.

Anonymous wrote:I have dense breasts and have been asking for ultrasound for a decade because I hate mammograms so much but no one will ever approve them. I just skip the mammograms mostly because they cause so much pain.

I noticed in the article that it said this type of breast cancer is typically very slow growing….is that the medical justification for not making this standard of care? Basically that it will show in a mammogram before it gets dangerous?

An MRI with contrast dye is best. I get one, along with a mammogram and ultrasound, every year. My breasts are very dense as well and, even though mammograms don't cause me any discomfort, I've been told that mammograms aren't great for seeing anything in dense breasts. My MRIs have twice detected something that the mammogram missed completely. (The ultrasound missed one of them). I'm high risk so I've been screened very carefully since I turned 30.

Anonymous wrote:Because of my dense breasts, they always do ultrasounds on me. Should be standard.

Really? Hmm, now I'm wondering if I should request the same. I've been getting the 3D mammograms for my dense tissue.

Anonymous wrote:How scary - her son is only 2. If she died he wouldn't remember her at all.

Never say that to a woman diagnosed with cancer who has a young child. We already know that, thanks. But my kid is a teenager now so I’m very lucky.