I voted AND had my first mamogram!

[OakLeaf]

That's the benefit. I didn't mean to suggest there was no benefit.

Now, what about the harms? For every identified cancer, how many healthy breasts were biopsied? For every cancer and especially for every "pre-cancerous" lesion that was treated, how many of them would have had any effect on the duration or quality of the woman's life if left untreated? What percentage of cancer treatments serve only to extend a woman's suffering? What is the quality of a woman's life after cancer treatment damages her heart and lungs? Regardless of mortality/survival, what is the recurrence rate?

Some of those answers are intangible. Some of them are still being researched. Others have never been studied - which is a great disservice. Because they are all important questions that should be considered before someone submits to screening. After screening identifies a so-called abnormality is not a good time to be making these decisions.

I'm going to make up some numbers here by way of illustration just so it's clear what terms mean. THIS IS NOT A REAL STUDY - there is no such study. I encourage everyone to do her own searches to find out what is and is not known on these questions. But to understand the statistics, one has to understand the language. Let's say 2,000 women are identified with DCIS. Half of them undergo lumpectomy with radiation, half of them receive no treatment. Of the treatment group, 80 eventually develop fatal breast cancer. Of the non-treatment group, 160 eventually develop fatal breast cancer. One way of looking at that is to say that treatment reduced mortality by 50%. Another way of looking at it is that for every 100 women who are treated, only eight are helped, and 92 are disfigured and irradiated unnecessarily.

Make your own decisions. Absolutely. And don't give my opinion any more credence than you would anyone ranting on the Internet - please don't. But please do become fully informed before making any decision about your health.

[uforgot]

I was 32 when my mom died of breast cancer. My brother, my dad and I took care of her during those final weeks. She was allowed to stay home through hospice, which was a godsend. Watch someone you love die of this disease and then let's see how you feel about the "risks" associated with mammograms. I've had yearly mammograms since I was 31 and I'm now 54.

[Cataboo]

I looked into this earlier but didn't have a chance to finish typing up a post, 'cause I decided to work at work instead

The standards for elderly woman are - if doctors expect that she still has a good 5 year survival rate, then they recommend that screening mammograms should be done. I'm assuming that they're basing that upon finding that if you have more than 5 years of life left, the benefits of mammography far outweigh the risks.

Risks of radiation damage by mammography - greater when you're younger, but after age 40, the risk is thought to be equivalent to smoking 3 cigarettes. The worst case scenarios that have been worked out estimate the potential for mammography radiation induced cancers to be 3 cases in 1 million women.

As for the pain of biopsy - I don't see how that's a risk of mammography. You get a big needle stuck in and something taken out. Yes, you have that happen and I guess there's a possiblity that malignant transformation or metastases is not going to occur for a while and there's not currently a good weigh of predicting that (however, from a biopsy or tumor sample it's usually fairly easy to see how disorganized the structure of the tissue is and how far along it is along the path.... And when you have metastatic tumors that can dump something like a million cells into the blood stream at a time... I'm thinking avoiding anything leading up to metastases is to be avoided)... However, pre-malignant lesions are usually just removed surgically and are not treated with radiation & chemotherapy - so now potential damage to the heart or lungs. You can also look at what genes are upregulated by the lesion - and there are several that have been associated with high risk of malignancy or death... That technology is still evolving...

However, I'm not sure if I have a pre-malignant lesion, I want to leave it in me just because the gene profile of it shows that it's highly possibly it will be stable for X number of years and risk it.

Anyways - I would love if everyone who reads something on the internet decides to research it themselves and takes it with a grain of salt. However, the number of people that think Obama is muslim has convinced me that is not so, and I know a lot of people hate mammograms and are looking for excuses to not bother and I'd hate for this forum thread to be their excuse.

[Brandi]

I was 32 when my mom died of breast cancer. My brother, my dad and I took care of her during those final weeks. She was allowed to stay home through hospice, which was a godsend. Watch someone you love die of this disease and then let's see how you feel about the "risks" associated with mammograms. I've had yearly mammograms since I was 31 and I'm now 54.

I lost my sister in law at age 34 of breast Cancer. No history in her family,they said it was enviromental. I watched my brother and my 3 year nephew go through hell and back from her dying. I am with uforgot on this one. A close friend of mine's mom this past year had a emegency mastectomy both breast. and cancer didn't run in their family either. I guess now it does. I should point out her mamogram did not show the baseball size lump hiding behind her breast. I was when they were removing some of her lymph nodes that the surgeon saw it. She had leaking out of her one nipple which is why they were removing the lymph nodes. She had had cervical cancer some years back. Oh that's another pet peev of mine. Pap smears! My friends mom had had a hysterectomy and figured she didn't have to ever have another pap. And then she got the cancer. PLEASE get your yearly check ups!