Less Mammography in my future

[uforgot]

Every year for me too. Until my mom was diagnosed with breast cancer, we had no history either. It was diagnosed early, wasn't in the lymph nodes, but reappeared in the other breast within a few years and she lost the battle. Two years is too long. I've seen what it does.

[Tuckervill]

If annually is good, why not every six months? Or every quarter?

This is an honest question.

Karen

[Pedal Wench]

I did have an aunt who started to have abit of breast cancer. But she died from totally different reasons at 82.

A bit of cancer? You either do or don't.

Unfortunately, family history is only a very small indicator of risk - I believe under 10% of women diagnosed have had a previous family history.

[Pedal Wench]

If annually is good, why not every six months? Or every quarter?

This is an honest question.

Karen

It's thought that the growth of a tumor can be controlled if caught within a year.

[indysteel]

A bit of cancer? You either do or don't.

Unfortunately, family history is only a very small indicator of risk - I believe under 10% of women diagnosed have had a previous family history.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the genetic link is stronger if your family history has incidents of premenopausal BC, rather than post. That's why I decided it was best to start young.

Uforgot---I'm so sorry about your mom. (((((()))))))

[melissam]

What bothers me about this is that this is the best tool we have for screening breast cancer. This is a disease that affects a huge number of women, and we're told that early detection is the best way to prevent death from breast cancer. Yet, the screening tool is bad enough that they now think its risks outweigh its benefits until women are over 50. And then it's only useful every 3 years.

Oh, and all that self-checking every month stuff -- no, never mind, it's not useful either. And if I read correctly, they're thinking that breast exams performed by a doctor aren't that helpful either.

Ahem. Pardon my language here, but WTF?

Is someone working on a better screening tool? Until we get one, this is the best shot we have at preventing breast cancer, so I'm a little pissed about the experts recommending that we limit the use of this tool.

[ny biker]

What bothers me about this is that this is the best tool we have for screening breast cancer. This is a disease that affects a huge number of women, and we're told that early detection is the best way to prevent death from breast cancer. Yet, the screening tool is bad enough that they now think its risks outweigh its benefits until women are over 50. And then it's only useful every 3 years.

Oh, and all that self-checking every month stuff -- no, never mind, it's not useful either. And if I read correctly, they're thinking that breast exams performed by a doctor aren't that helpful either.

Ahem. Pardon my language here, but WTF?

Is someone working on a better screening tool? Until we get one, this is the best shot we have at preventing breast cancer, so I'm a little pissed about the experts recommending that we limit the use of this tool.

+1000

[beccaB]

I'm just going to keep on keepin' on. My Mom died of that disease three years older than I am now. If I get a false positive, further tests will prove one way or the other. I've has numerous call-backs. I'd rather that than the alternative.I have had one every year now since I was 40, 8 years ago. I made it past that certain age milestone where my Mom was first diagnosed. Every time I have a clean mammo I go buy myself a treat from Victoria's Secret!

[OakLeaf]

Yeah I understand the problem of false positives, but I'd really hate to be one of the 19% that could have been helped. That's a big number.

It's more like the 0.1% who could have been helped. Statistically, they have to irradiate 1,000 women and biopsy 100 before they get one who meets the doctors' definition of having been helped... which may be a considerably broader definition of "helped" than many patients may have.

This latest recommendation is the distillation of the doctors' grudging realization that they were harming way, way, way too many women in the name of helping some. And as others have pointed out, it merely brings the USA in line with the rest of the developed world (which, at least some of the rest of the developed world is now considering further narrowing the pool of women to whom they recommend irradiation).

I was thinking about this while doing yardwork this afternoon. Basically, for the individual, it's no different from a religion. There is no way that any individual can know whether she's been helped. It's sometimes, but not always, easier to know when a woman has been harmed.

Each of us has to believe what we need to believe to get through the day. Considering what's at stake, what we may have been through on this front, and the indoctrination we receive, just thinking about it, just looking in the mirror, putting on a bra or a HRM, can be extremely distressing. I'm pretty sure I have a mild case of PTSD from it, and I'm very sure that a lot of other women do.

IMO, the best we can do, just as we do with religion, is try to make choices and choose belief systems that don't hurt ourselves or other people, but at the same time try to avoid attacking other people's belief systems - even if they seem to us to be hurtful.

[firenze11]

What bothers me about this is that this is the best tool we have for screening breast cancer. This is a disease that affects a huge number of women, and we're told that early detection is the best way to prevent death from breast cancer. Yet, the screening tool is bad enough that they now think its risks outweigh its benefits until women are over 50. And then it's only useful every 3 years.

Oh, and all that self-checking every month stuff -- no, never mind, it's not useful either. And if I read correctly, they're thinking that breast exams performed by a doctor aren't that helpful either.

Ahem. Pardon my language here, but WTF?

Is someone working on a better screening tool? Until we get one, this is the best shot we have at preventing breast cancer, so I'm a little pissed about the experts recommending that we limit the use of this tool.

I couldn't really put my finger on why this was bothering me so much, but you hit the nail on the head for me. I'm only 26 so maybe (hopefully) by the time I'm 40 there will be better means of detection and treatment. This just makes me feel confused and somewhat helpless. After watching my Mom's best friend battle breast cancer for over 10 years after late detection and seeing the pain her daughter faced and continues to face after she passed away this July, I can't help but feeling this is all too statistical.

[roadie gal]

MRIs and ultrasounds are both tests that are being studied. I'm not sure where either one stands at this time. Ultrasound is easy to get and does not irradiate you, but it's very operator dependent. It takes a very skilled technician to do it competently. MRI is extremely expensive and time consuming and a lot of people can't deal with the claustrophobia of the MRI machine. Also, if you have a pacemaker or other medical hardware you may not be able to get an MRI.

When I was in medical school in the last 70s to early 80s I was taught the incidence of breast cancer was one in 12 women. Now it's about one in 8. That's a HUGE increase. Some of it may be due to earlier detection of low level cancers that may have undergone spontaneous remission without treatment. But I believe those numbers do reflect a true increased incidence.

I've read some of the studies that look at mammograms as a screening tool, as well as self exam. None of the screening tools are great, but they're better than nothing. I'll keep getting my mammos until something better comes along.

[Running Mommy]

I just found out that my 63 yr old mom had a "bad" (her words) mamo in October. They are doing NOTHING at this point and just ordered another one in March. She's a bit freaked out as I am.
Last year I had my baseline mamo when I turned (ack) 40. They found lots of suspicious things and I was off for a battery of other tests, blood work and an ultrasound. Turned out ok. But I still feel like I need to keep an eye on it.
I had cervical cancer in 2001, so I am hyper sensitive to being diagnosed with another form of it. I just know of too many people who beat C the first time, but it got them the second time around.
I begged my mom to keep up w/the self exams and if she feels ANYTHING to make a beeline to the doc.
And now this comes out...
I don't really like it. I can see maybe doing it every other year, or even every couple. But to say that self exams are useless and to discourage them??
I would really like the "expert" that came up with that recommendation to explain their reasoning.

[fastdogs]

I'm thinking I'll stick to once a year still- except that probably after this, most insurance will not pay for it.
My sister never saw a doctor till she was 50. She felt a small lump and went in for her first mammogram. She found out she was stage 4 breast cancer- they removed both breasts and over 20 lymph nodes. It had already spread through most of her organs. She is still with us, but won't tell us how long she has left. The latest test was to see if it's spread to her brain, the only place it hasn't been found. Unless they can find the right chemo blend, she'll be on and off chemo and on heavy pain meds for however much longer she lives.
Before her, there was no history in my family.
vickie

[Pedal Wench]

I'm trying to figure out why this has made me so, so angry. I think I'm getting a grasp on it.

This task force has said that all the false positives just make women unnecessarily worried. It's all so degrading -- women are just so fragile that they can't make up their own minds and take charge of their bodies and health. Don't do a self-exam because you might not be able to handle the results or the stress while determining if it's a cancerous growth that might be silently killing you.

Even some of the opinions here - you might not feel that you want to know what's going on in your body, but for the government to tell women not to worry about it until they're 50, when so, so many women are dying because their cancer wasn't caught earlier is infuriating. Don't tell women to put their heads in the sand and their hands in their pockets. Feel your boobs, learn them, and know what your options are. It's my body, and I'll be damned if I'll let a government task force decide what's best for me.

In the interest of full disclosure, I"ve had numerous suspicious lumps, some discovered by self-exam, some on mammogram. I've had biopsies on most of them, and wear the scars proudly, because I know they're a symbol of me taking charge of my body and proactively fighting for my life.

[Pedal Wench]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the genetic link is stronger if your family history has incidents of premenopausal BC, rather than post. That's why I decided it was best to start young.

Uforgot---I'm so sorry about your mom. (((((()))))))

From the American Cancer Society:
Family history of breast cancer

Breast cancer risk is higher among women whose close blood relatives have this disease.

Having one first-degree relative (mother, sister, or daughter) with breast cancer approximately doubles a woman's risk. Having 2 first-degree relatives increases her risk about 5-fold.

Although the exact risk is not known, women with a family history of breast cancer in a father or brother also have an increased risk of breast cancer. Altogether, about 20% to 30% of women with breast cancer have a family member with this disease. This means that most (70% to 80%) women who get breast cancer do not have a family history of this disease.)