Is Everyone Up to Date on Mammograms???

[trista]

I had my baseline this month since I'm now 40. I had to go back for a diagnostic. For me it was both painful and stressful, but it's too important a test to ignore. I have to go back in 6 months because my diagnostic did not match the first baseline (too much dense tissue they say).

[marni]

Hooter slam?

I call it a Tit Squish, myself, but I'm literal that way.

burger boobs, mammar slammer, pancake boobs, party patties, yearly squash and squish

can't think of any more right now but I used to have dozens.

marni

[ivorygorgon]

Just had mine. I think I will begin calling it the squash and squish. I called my pap a "peek and poke" for years

[marni]

Just had mine. I think I will begin calling it the squash and squish. I called my pap a "peek and poke" for years

I've called mine a poke and a prod for years.

marni

[szsz]

I had my baseline this month since I'm now 40. I had to go back for a diagnostic. For me it was both painful and stressful, but it's too important a test to ignore. I have to go back in 6 months because my diagnostic did not match the first baseline (too much dense tissue they say).

If you are near a university teaching hospital you may want to ask what alternatives they offer to the traditional mammo. Some have a sort of doppler procedure that is more effective for dense breasts. Others will order an MRI.

I caught my own BC before a mammo, but I have to jump on the bandwagon and say get it done!

Try to go to a place that does digital imaging where they can compare minute details from one year to the next.

Good luck, everyone!

[pll]

I've called mine a poke and a prod for years.

marni

It is funny how detached the "pap" test has become from the dr who came up with it... this is in many countries. At home, we did not have a "pap test". We had a Papanikolaou test.

[OakLeaf]

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/1...-is-tested/?hp

Everyone has to make her own decision - but the important thing is that everyone should make a decision and not just jump on a bandwagon without thinking about what she's doing. Understand the benefits and the risks, have a plan of action for every step if a test should come back positive.

[pll]

Whoa. The research is interesting, but the NYT blog post has some red herrings: the idea some women might believe that the mammogram prevents cancer for one.

You can look at the paper. First, they do not have a dataset that allows them precise estimates -- they use some dataset (DevCan) that allows them to estimate the 10 year risk of developing cancer for different age brackets, and they use a different source (National Health Interview Survey of 2003) to estimate the proportion of cancers detected by screening. Then then the authors make the leap:

"The risk of having screen-detected cancer was estimated simply as the product of the risk of developing breast cancer and the proportion of breast cancers found by mammography."

In other words, having mammographies is assumed a completely independent event from the risk of developing breast cancer. Really? I would believe that if someone knows their family has a history of breast cancer, they are more likely to be diligent about mammographies... Anyway, the paper is a good collection of informed guesses, but I would not consider it the definitive word on mammographies.

It was interesting to read the comments to the NYT blog entry and how some people believe they know how to prevent cancer (as in 'good diet, exercise, not smoking'.... it all might help, but cancer hits fit, health-conscious people, too).

[szsz]

but cancer hits fit, health-conscious people, too).

Yes, yes it does.

[OakLeaf]

Whoa. The research is interesting, but the NYT blog post has some red herrings: the idea some women might believe that the mammogram prevents cancer for one.

I see that kind of magical thinking all the time. In October especially, but year round. And the American Cancer Society, for one, quietly promotes it. Its Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Otis Brawley, was just quoted earlier this month citing mammograms in a list of things that can reduce the risk of breast cancer.

cancer hits fit, health-conscious people, too

Exactly. Which is why we fit, health-conscious people need to make informed decisions about our health care, and put at least as much thought into it as unhealthy people do. Having a test because everyone is doing it - and assuming it will be negative so not having a plan of action if it is positive - is no way to take care of ourselves.


I'm not at all saying everyone has to make the same decisions I have. I'm just urging everyone to spend at least the same amount of mental energy on the decision whether or not to have a mammogram, as they do on the decision about buying a new car (hashed in depth in any number of threads here).

[ShubieGA]

Yep - we call it boob squish. Scheduled for next week!

[indysteel]

I've read that NYT's article a few times since it was first published, and it always leaves me somewhat confused. Just a couple points that confuse me:

It states that most slow growing cancers would be found with or without screening. Does that mean most of them can be found because the lump ultimately becomes palpabable? And does that assume that one engages in self examination or otherwise regularly visits a doctor who exams your breast. Does anyone know the percentage of women who actually do? I do, but I'm guessing a lot of people don't.

The article's real beef--it seems to me--is with the overtreatment of more benign forms of breast cancer. Is the real issue, then, with the diagnostic or with the treatment? If it's the latter, then I don't know that we gain much by not addressing that issue head on, rather than by criticizing the diagnostic, because there remains that admittedly small segment of people who do catch an aggressive form of breast cancer early through mammography and live to tell the tale. If you're fearful of being in that group--like I am--then mammography makes sense, as imperfect as it is.
But I agree that it also make sense not to overtreat breast cancer, and it certainly makes sense to make clear that mammography doesn't prevent breast cancer.

But all that said, I'm not sure I'm reading the article correctly as to this point. I do want to understand the pros and cons better.