Mammograms...to get another one or not?

[dancer67]

I know this was discusses a while back. Today I got a reminder in the mail for my "yearly" mammogram. I am going to be 43 in November. Had my first baseline last September. All negative.

 

I know there are new guidelines now. I am afraid of all that radiation though as well. But then I am afraid if I don't get one, they may miss something.

 

I have no HX of BC in my family other then my grandmothers sister.

 

So, do I go by the new guidelines and get one at 50? Or, do I get one every year?

 

Do the benefits outweigh the risks?

 

Any opinions on this?

[mom31257]

I have a close friend who had cancer found on her very first mammogram at age 40. Obviously, I think it is a good idea that she didn't wait and her cancer wasn't caused by previous mammograms. It seems that I hear of more and more women having breast cancer younger and younger.

 

It sounds like you are afraid not to have it. You could try stretching them out so that they aren't every year to the month.

 

My mother had breast cancer two years ago. I think I will always feel the need to have them for her reassurance if nothing else. I ended up putting about 1.5 years between the first 2 I had (I'm 43, too). I just had to have a second one this year on just one breast because of pain in it. I will have another next year, but it may be more like a year after this last one rather than a year from the first full one this year.

 

Good luck making your decision.

[Tammy]

if you are worried about the radiation.

 

.

[ProudGrandma]

if you are worried about the radiation.

 

.

 

I have never heard of this...is this a new option? Can they get the same information?

[dancer67]

My insurance does not cover ultrasound unless something is found on the mammo.

 

I am not afraid of the procedure at all. It is simple. I am always on edge about results though!! And if I ever recived a false positive, it may send me over the edge. Not sure of the percentage of false positives of someone my age.

 

I am leaning towards having it done again. Maybe because I think the longer I wait, the more on edge I would be that they would find something as it would be so long in between.

 

And I wonder if these new guidelines were put in place because of the insurance companies, rather then the health of women. ?

[momof3sofar]

As someone who had my baseline MM at 41 and my second one 2 weeks ago, (and now my 3rd last week) I will be in the camp of GET IT. WHY you might ask? Well I am headed off in a week for a sterotastic breast biopsy because in just the 2 years since my first one I now have microcalcifications that "do not present in a beign way" All that is to say that this second MM might have just saved my life. If it is cancer at this stage they can remove it, do some radiation and all will be well. That is my prayers at least!

 

Not to hijack your thread with my health issues but seriously, the amount of stuff you are exposed to is well worth the chance of finding something early. There is no history of BC in my family either.

 

Just another side of the coin to think about.

[AlaskaGrownFamily]

The new (11/09) recommendations were made by a task force (The US Preventative Services ITC), and are opposed by the American Cancer Society, the American College of Radiology, and the Society of Breast Imaging, as well as the Susan G. Komen foundation. A woman in her forties has a 1/69 chance of developing breast cancer. Delayed diagnosis will contribute to increased morbidity.

 

As the wife of a diagnostic imaging center employee, I say have your mammogram done. Yearly at 40+. And don't forget your monthly self-checks. :)

[Marie in OR]

I had breast cancer two years ago, at 45. There is NO breast cancer in any family members going back as far as I know, and I have no other risk factors, breastfed all 4 of my kids for years, etc. I went a year and a half without a mammogram (I put it off), and then they ended up finding an aggressive tumor, small, but fast growing. If I had not had the mammo when I did, I would be dead now. See, in younger women (below age 50), the kind of breast cancer found is usually the aggressive, harder to kill kind. The radiation dose from a mammogram is about 0.7 mSv, which is about the same as the average person receives from background radiation in three months*. Catching breast cancer early means a high survival rate. And there are NO symptoms to most breast cancer. I could not even feel my tumor (4 mm).

 

As for not being able to handle a false positive, yes, you will. You will handle it for the sake of being alive for your kids and your grandkids. The biopsies, MRI's, chemotherapy, NONE of it is too much to handle. You will handle it just fine. For them.

 

Please ladies, get a mammogram every year.

 

*http://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/info.cfm?pg=mammo

[creekmom]

I had breast cancer two years ago, at 45. There is NO breast cancer in any family members going back as far as I know, and I have no other risk factors, breastfed all 4 of my kids for years, etc. I went a year and a half without a mammogram (I put it off), and then they ended up finding an aggressive tumor, small, but fast growing. If I had not had the mammo when I did, I would be dead now. See, in younger women (below age 50), the kind of breast cancer found is usually the aggressive, harder to kill kind. The radiation dose from a mammogram is about 0.7 mSv, which is about the same as the average person receives from background radiation in three months*. Catching breast cancer early means a high survival rate. And there are NO symptoms to most breast cancer. I could not even feel my tumor (4 mm).

 

As for not being able to handle a false positive, yes, you will. You will handle it for the sake of being alive for your kids and your grandkids. The biopsies, MRI's, chemotherapy, NONE of it is too much to handle. You will handle it just fine. For them.

 

Please ladies, get a mammogram every year.

 

*www.radiologyinfo.org/en/info.cfm?pg=mammo

 

:iagree: Well said!!

[Maverick_Mom]

As someone who had my baseline MM at 41 and my second one 2 weeks ago, (and now my 3rd last week) I will be in the camp of GET IT. WHY you might ask? Well I am headed off in a week for a sterotastic breast biopsy because in just the 2 years since my first one I now have microcalcifications that "do not present in a beign way" All that is to say that this second MM might have just saved my life. If it is cancer at this stage they can remove it, do some radiation and all will be well. That is my prayers at least!

 

Not to hijack your thread with my health issues but seriously, the amount of stuff you are exposed to is well worth the chance of finding something early. There is no history of BC in my family either.

 

Just another side of the coin to think about.

 

(((Dawn))), I had this procedure done when I was the same age as you. It was after my *first* mammogram, and since they didn't have a baseline to go on, they followed up the mammo with an ultrasound and then did the stereotactic biopsy. It was all very overwhelming -- you go for your mammograms for peace of mind, right? -- who expects there to be a problem the very first time, especially when there's no family history of breast cancer?

 

I know all the arguments against having mammograms, and every woman must decide for herself what to do; but I am thankful that since I had something questionable going on there, it was detected and dealt with. And I have been diligent about getting mammograms ever since. I have to say that in some ways I dread it -- I've had a couple of callbacks and was a wreck waiting for the news -- but I will continue to have them done.

 

Praying for you as you have the biopsy done.

[Ellie]

Mary Leggewie's family would tell you to get one. She missed one year, and the following year was diagnosed with breast cancer. She had a double mastectomy (I believe), and while in the hospital contracted a secondary infection. She passed away from that infection. I don't believe she was yet 40.

 

Yes. Get one.

[Maverick_Mom]

 

As for not being able to handle a false positive, yes, you will. You will handle it for the sake of being alive for your kids and your grandkids. The biopsies, MRI's, chemotherapy, NONE of it is too much to handle. You will handle it just fine. For them.

 

 

 

Very eloquently put. :)

[Maverick_Mom]

Mary Leggewie's family would tell you to get one. She missed one year, and the following year was diagnosed with breast cancer. She had a double mastectomy (I believe), and while in the hospital contracted a secondary infection. She passed away from that infection. I don't believe she was yet 40.

 

Yes. Get one.

 

Oh, my. I knew Mary had passed away from an infection but I didn't know that she contracted it after having undergone surgery for breast cancer.

[dancer67]

ok, that settles it. I will call Tuesday for the appt. I think I will feel better knowing I had one, and if there is anything there, it is there whether I get one done or not.

 

And yes. I will handle it. Somehow, someway. IF something comes back not right.

 

Thank you ladies for the encouragement and support.

[dancer67]

As someone who had my baseline MM at 41 and my second one 2 weeks ago, (and now my 3rd last week) I will be in the camp of GET IT. WHY you might ask? Well I am headed off in a week for a sterotastic breast biopsy because in just the 2 years since my first one I now have microcalcifications that "do not present in a beign way" All that is to say that this second MM might have just saved my life. If it is cancer at this stage they can remove it, do some radiation and all will be well. That is my prayers at least!

 

Not to hijack your thread with my health issues but seriously, the amount of stuff you are exposed to is well worth the chance of finding something early. There is no history of BC in my family either.

 

Just another side of the coin to think about.

 

I am going to pray for you. And thank you for this post.

[dancer67]

As for not being able to handle a false positive, yes, you will. You will handle it for the sake of being alive for your kids and your grandkids. The biopsies, MRI's, chemotherapy, NONE of it is too much to handle. You will handle it just fine. For them.

 

Please ladies, get a mammogram every year.

 

 

 

 

:iagree:

 

And thank you for that reminder:grouphug:

[momof3sofar]

I am going to pray for you. And thank you for this post.

 

(((Dawn))), I had this procedure done when I was the same age as you. It was after my *first* mammogram, and since they didn't have a baseline to go on, they followed up the mammo with an ultrasound and then did the stereotactic biopsy. It was all very overwhelming -- you go for your mammograms for peace of mind, right? -- who expects there to be a problem the very first time, especially when there's no family history of breast cancer?

 

I know all the arguments against having mammograms, and every woman must decide for herself what to do; but I am thankful that since I had something questionable going on there, it was detected and dealt with. And I have been diligent about getting mammograms ever since. I have to say that in some ways I dread it -- I've had a couple of callbacks and was a wreck waiting for the news -- but I will continue to have them done.

 

Praying for you as you have the biopsy done.

 

Thank you both so very much! Again, I did not want to hijack the OP thread. I will probably come back to the board and ask for prayers when it gets closer to the biopsy.

 

The poor radiologist is a dear friend of our family, I almost felt worse for him having to do the ultrasound on the cysts on the left side and to tell me what was found on the right.

 

I came home and researched for hours on "Dr. G00gle" and feel very confident that no matter what this is I WILL BE OK. I am scared but confident that it was the best decision ever to go and have it done.

 

And dancer67 I will pray that you do not have any issues with your mammogram. Do not panic if you do though, I was told that with the newer digital mammography there are more call backs for a screening mammogram than ever before. They just want to be SURE everything is ok.

[Sara R]

Mary Leggewie's family would tell you to get one. She missed one year, and the following year was diagnosed with breast cancer. She had a double mastectomy (I believe), and while in the hospital contracted a secondary infection. She passed away from that infection. I don't believe she was yet 40.

 

Yes. Get one.

 

How could she have missed a year if she wasn't even 40 yet? Screening mammograms aren't recommended before age 40.

 

Screening mammograms are not recommended for women under 40 mainly because mammograms don't work well for women under 40. It's not because younger women don't get breast cancer. They do. I did at age 32. A friend from high school got diagnosed about a year later. I see youngish moms on the obituary page fairly regularly. :( Unfortunately cancer is usually stronger in young women too. Life isn't fair.

 

Why aren't mammograms recommended for women under 40? Because mammograms aren't finding the cancer for women that age.

 

The scientists studied it and determined that getting annual mammograms starting at age 40 didn't offer any additional protection over waiting until 50. Personally I trust the science. I understand it was a good quality long term study.

 

But they still need to develop a good screening method for young women. Mammograms aren't it. MRIs are too expensive and lead to too many false positives. Ultrasounds are good for checking out a lump in young women, but aren't good for screening (i.e. for women without symptoms).

 

I found my lump just incidentally. I had a clear clinical breast exam just 2 months before. Luckily the doctor taught me to do a self exam at the time. I didn't find the cancer with a self exam, but because he taught me I know for myself that the lump wasn't there in July, but it was golf ball sized by September. Freaky. If he hadn't taught me I would have thought the doctor missed it.

 

My message: If you have a lump, get it biopsied right away! And support research toward developing a screening method that works for young women. Mammograms aren't it, and encouraging mammograms for young women is a false sense of security in my opinion. Otherwise, I have no problem with following the current official recommendations.

 

Sara, a 4 1/2 year survivor who doesn't have to worry about mammograms anymore!

[Lilymax]

How could she have missed a year if she wasn't even 40 yet? Screening mammograms aren't recommended before age 40.

 

 

 

I think recommendations might've changed? Because I had a baseline done at 35, with the next one scheduled for 40. I missed that one due to putting it off five months, then getting pregnant and now breastfeeding. I'm 42 and will definitely have one when LO weans. Y'all are scaring me. But sometimes that's a good thing!

[dancer67]

Dawn

 

Thank you for the positive thoughts. I know I was told last year as well, that if I got a call back NOT to panic. But since I suffer from Health Anxiety, I tend to over-react:confused:.

 

I am going to get mine done, because I feel the benefits still outweigh the risks at this point. And even with a rate of false positives, I know that they will follow up with it to make sure everything is okay. Or not.

 

I have seen so many women DX with BC, and I just do not feel comfortable waiting until age 50.

 

Will continue prayers for you Dawn. :grouphug:

[Peela]

I wouldn't.

If you like I have some info I can send you- its too long to fit in here. (peela at iinet dot net dot au)

I am 43. I wont be getting mamograms, but if I detect a problem with my own hands (something doctors tend to feel we are incapable of), I will get an ultrasound. I do do regular testing of myself.

[Ellie]

How could she have missed a year if she wasn't even 40 yet? Screening mammograms aren't recommended before age 40.

My bad. She was 50.

[Negin]

Just copying and pasting the research I've come up with. Have not yet read all the replies. I'm not saying that I'll never have a mammogram. I may or may not have them eventually. No history of breast cancer. I'm 42. I will have a thermogram in October. I have a few friends, one of whom has history of breast cancer. Like Peela, they rely on self-exams and healthy living. They're all in their mid-50s and have told me that they will never have a mammogram. My mother's first mammogram was around 60. She's also going for her first thermogram later this week.

 

BOOKS

Waking the Warrior Goddess: Dr. Christine Horner’s Program to Protect Against and Fight Breast Cancer

The Breast Cancer Prevention Program by Samuel S. Epstein, MD and David Steinman

Should I Be Tested for Cancer? by Dr. H. Gilbert Welch

 

MAMMOGRAMS

Radiation

Mammograms employ low-dose X-rays to examine the breast tissue.

The more you expose yourself, the more damage your body endures.

The earlier you begin screening mammography, the more radiation exposure you will experience and a high incidence of false-negative (and false-positive) readings because younger women typically have denser breast tissue, which makes accurate mammogram readings more difficult. In sum, routine mammography screening, particularly for younger or pre-menopausal women, may cause more harm than good.

The pre-menopausal breast is highly sensitive to radiation, each rad exposure increasing the risk of breast cancer by one percent. This results in a cumulative 10 percent increased risk of breast cancer over ten years of pre-menopausal mammography.

These risks are even greater for younger women subject to “baseline screening”

The Nordic Cochrane Centre in Denmark found that mammograms may harm 10 times as many women as they help

The researchers examined the benefits and negative effects of seven breast cancer screening programs on 500,000 women in the United States, Canada, Scotland and Sweden. The study’s authors found that for every 2,000 women who received mammograms over a 10-year period, only one would have her life prolonged, but 10 would endure unnecessary and potentially harmful treatments.

However, the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) breast screening program – which provides free mammograms for women over the age of 50 every three years – cited different statistics in defending its program. An NHS statement said the Department of Health’s advisory committee on breast cancer screening had conducted its own evaluation of the program, and found that screening prolonged the lives of five women out of every 2,000 over a 10-year period.

A woman’s radiation dose from a typical mammogram is considerably more than from a typical chest X-ray. According to the US Department of Energy, a woman’s radiation dose from a typical mammogram is 2.5 mSv (millisievert or effective dose). By comparison, the effective dose from a chest X-ray is considerably less at 0.1 mSv.

Whatever you may be told, refuse routine mammograms, especially if you are pre-menopausal. The x-ray may increase your chances of getting cancer.

 

Mammograms squeeze the breasts so hard that encapsulated cancer cells can rupture, causing a dormant cancer to become active and grow.

Since mammographic screening was introduced, the incidence of a form of breast cancer called ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS ) has increased by 328%.

According to some health practitioners, this compression could cause existing cancer cells to metastasize from the breast site.

There has been a large number of slow growing and benign growths, such as DCIS, that are diagnosed as a consequence of a screening mammography.

Research has also found a gene, called oncogene AC that is extremely sensitive to even small doses of radiation. A significant percentage of women in the United States have this gene, which could increase their risk of mammography-induced cancer. They estimate that 10,000 AC carriers will die of breast cancer this year due to mammography.

 

Limited in what they can find

Mammograms are finding cancers that breast exams may miss, but they’re not finding minute cancers or pre-cancerous conditions.

Thermography offers a safer method of evaluating breast tissue for abnormalities way before cancer begins – in time to change the inner environment and prevent breast cancer.

Mammograms also carry a high rate of inaccuracy, both positive and negative. In other words, it sounds the alarm for cancer in up to 10 percent of women who don’t really have it, and doesn’t find it in 10 to 30 percent of women who actually do have it.

In addition to annual radiation exposure from a screening mammogram, every false-positive mammogram reading often leads to a diagnostic mammogram and even more radiation exposure.

Mammograms can only find cancer tumors that have already grown and reached a certain size.

Breast cancer in young women is typically more aggressive than breast cancer in older women. This is because younger women who have breast cancer are more likely to have a genetic predisposition to the disease.

While it's important to detect any cancer as early as possible, it's vital for women under the age of 50. That's because genetic cancers are often the fastest growing cancers. Most doctors will tell you mammograms are the best way to detect early breast cancer. But, unfortunately, mammograms aren't a reliable way to find small tumors.

 

Mammography is not the only option.

Monthly breast-self examination (BSE)

Annual examination by a gynecologist or trained nurse

BREAST THERMOGRAPHY

Relies on a heat-sensing infrared camera to scan for abnormalities

Noninvasive (no tissue is exposed to X-rays)

Safe

Does not involve any of the manipulation or squeezing of the breast that’s part of getting a mammogram - thermography simply requires having a few pictures taken at a distance of several feet

Very effective at detecting abnormalities, or changes in tissue, long before mammography or other screening methods could

Thermography detects changes (such as estrogen dominance) that may not show up on a mammogram for years. With thermography, one is able to pick up the problem at its earliest and most treatable stage. Breast thermography can find pre-cancerous conditions before a tumor forms. Studies show thermography can indicate a cancer may be forming up to 12 years before any other test can detect any problem. It gives you early warnings long before a tumor forms.

 

The only tumors that are unlikely to show in thermograms are those that are slow-growing and not aggressive.

Yet thermography cannot pinpoint the exact location of damaged or cancerous cells, so you still need additional procedures, such as mammography, to determine if an actual tumor is forming or has already formed, or to pinpoint the precise location of an existing abnormality. Another drawback: a lack of uniform regulation in equipment and training for diagnostic technicians—and insurance plans rarely cover its use. The most reliable site: http://www.breastthermography.com/ - helps find a good and reliable center near you

• You should be acclimated in the room for at least 15 minutes after disrobing

• There should be no draft or cold air on your body

• The background color on your thermogram should be black – any other color means that the room is too warm

• Your thermogram should be read and signed only by a board-certified health care provider who is licensed to diagnose, trained in breast imaging, and certified by an organization such as the one linked above – if your analysis is not signed, do not accept it

 

WHEN TO GET A MAMMOGRAPHY

If a woman has discovered a lump

After the age of 50 or after menopause - when the breast is much less sensitive to radiation – at which point it is best to combine mammography with thermography to get the very best, most accurate information in detecting the earliest possible cancers

 

Just because you have a lump in your breast doesn’t mean you have cancer.

Pseudo Lump is breast tissue approaching 1 inch in diameter that has formed into a lump, such as a pocket of dead fat or scar tissue that resulted from trauma caused by surgery or injury.

Lumpiness – little bumps that are approximately one-eighth inch in diameter. Harmless and perfectly natural – and has not been linked to later development of breast cancer

Cyst – These lumps are fluid-filled sacs that are most common in women between 30 and 55

They feel squishy near the surface

Those that are more deeply embedded in breast tissue feel harder

Fibroid or Fibroadenoma is a lump ranging from half an inch to 2 ½ inches or larger.

A rare cancer occurs in about 1% of all these lumps (usually the larger ones).

This type of cancer is relatively harmless because it doesn’t spread. You’ve got plenty of time to look at all your options.

Cancer Lump – By the time a cancerous lump is large enough for you to feel, it’s usually grown about half an inch in diameter.

If a cancerous lump is much smaller, you won’t feel it. In the early stages, a lump of cancerous cells feels like normal tissue. It will not change with menstrual cycles and is rarely painful.

Unless the type of cancer you have is extremely aggressive, you still have time to get information and examine your options.

 

According to a survey published in the British Medical Journal of 27 websites containing information on mammography screening, the following websites garnered a top rating for balanced, unbiased information:

National Breast Cancer Coalition: http://www.stopbreastcancer.org

Breast Cancer Action: http://www.bcation.org

Center For Medical Consumers: http://www.medicalconsumers.org

Edited September 5, 2010 by Negin in Grenada

[Peela]

Thanks for that, Negin. The info I have is similar.

[May]

Yes, I get mine yearly. Mom and sister both have had breast cancer.

[emubird]

The mammogram vs not mammogram science still, unfortunately, looks a little iffy to me on both sides. One has to remember that most money is going into proving that mammograms are better than BSE and make decisions accordingly. Mammograms MAY be beneficial, or they might be worse than just leaving well enough alone. I think it's really difficult to tell at this point and we're all making the decision in the dark.

 

I haven't yet had a mammogram, although I do consider it every year. My midwife is kind of on the fence about it. She's willing to let me not do it and not bother me about it. But she has been VERY bothersome about me having a colonoscopy to check for cancer. First, there's no radiation involved, and 2nd, colonoscopy can be preventive in that small suspicious polyps can just be cut out at the time of screening. So I get the feeling from her that she is also not entirely convinced that mammograms are all they're cracked up to be. Still, she's only one person (although she's one person who's probably seen more in her practice than I see in my daily life).

 

But I'm VERY diligent about self examination. Even if one decides not to do a mammogram, don't give up on the monthly self-exam. The women I've known with somewhat aggressive breast cancer have all found them with self-exams (sometimes within a month or two of a mammogram). The women I know who have had lumps found with mammography have all had not very aggressive cancers (it's not that they were early -- they were the type that didn't grow fast). But personal anecdotes are not statistical evidence. Unfortunately, there are a lot of holes one can pick in the statistics that are published, which is why I'm a bit leery of mammograms. (This is the down side of being of statistician, I'm afraid.)

[Sara R]

The mammogram vs not mammogram science still, unfortunately, looks a little iffy to me on both sides. One has to remember that most money is going into proving that mammograms are better than BSE and make decisions accordingly.

 

The thing is that the newest scientific studies don't recommend mammograms for women in their 40s: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/health/17cancer.html As I understand it, this was a high quality study. I trust it, even though I had breast cancer in my 30s. (I was very low risk: no family history, had 3 children and had nursed them for 40 months total, no history of the Pill, by the way. A very high percentage (something like 2/3?) of newly diagnosed patients don't have family history.)

 

Like I said above, that doesn't mean that women in their 30s and 40s don't get breast cancer. They do. The question is, do mammograms detect it early for women that age? This study is saying, no, not really.

[Sara R]

MAMMOGRAMS

Radiation

Mammograms employ low-dose X-rays to examine the breast tissue.

The more you expose yourself, the more damage your body endures.

The earlier you begin screening mammography, the more radiation exposure you will experience and a high incidence of false-negative (and false-positive) readings because younger women typically have denser breast tissue, which makes accurate mammogram readings more difficult. In sum, routine mammography screening, particularly for younger or pre-menopausal women, may cause more harm than good.

 

This is what that recent study was saying. (NYT article; Dr. Susan Love blog about it) The most respected current cancer recommendations agrees with what you are saying here.

 

 

Limited in what they can find

Mammograms are finding cancers that breast exams may miss, but they’re not finding minute cancers or pre-cancerous conditions.

 

Maybe I'm misunderstanding. Mammograms are finding minute cancers and precancerous conditions. That's what DCIS is, essentially pre-cancer.

 

Thermography offers a safer method of evaluating breast tissue for abnormalities way before cancer begins – in time to change the inner environment and prevent breast cancer.

 

I don't understand. Can't you "change the inner environment" without a thermography?

 

Mammograms also carry a high rate of inaccuracy, both positive and negative. In other words, it sounds the alarm for cancer in up to 10 percent of women who don’t really have it, and doesn’t find it in 10 to 30 percent of women who actually do have it.

 

This may be true, but where is the evidence that thermography is any better? As I understand it, as bad as mammograms are, they have been shown to be way more effective at detecting breast cancer than thermography: http://www.dslrf.org/breastcancer/content.asp?CATID=31&L2=1&L3=6&L4=0&PID=&sid=132&cid=659 According to that link, thermograms have been well studied, so it's not a matter of that.

 

Mammograms can only find cancer tumors that have already grown and reached a certain size. Most doctors will tell you mammograms are the best way to detect early breast cancer. But, unfortunately, mammograms aren't a reliable way to find small tumors.

 

Actually, mammograms do often find small cancers.

 

Breast cancer in young women is typically more aggressive than breast cancer in older women. This is because younger women who have breast cancer are more likely to have a genetic predisposition to the disease.

While it's important to detect any cancer as early as possible, it's vital for women under the age of 50. That's because genetic cancers are often the fastest growing cancers.

 

The first sentence of this quote is absolutely true. But it's not only because of genetic disease. I have no family history and no positive genetic testing. I think cancers are more vigorous in younger women because the rest of the young person's body is generally more vigorous.

 

Yeah, early detection would be nice for young women, but it generally doesn't happen, since there aren't any good tools to do it. "Early detection saves lives" is the old thinking that hasn't been proven true. Not all cancers are the same. There are scary fast cancers that have spread about as fast as your can find them. Here is Dr. Love on breast cancer detection: http://www.dslrf.org/breastcancer/content.asp?CATID=0&L2=1&L3=5&L4=0&PID=&sid=131&cid=506

 

 

WHEN TO GET A MAMMOGRAPHY

If a woman has discovered a lump

After the age of 50 or after menopause - when the breast is much less sensitive to radiation

 

Traditional science agrees with all of the above. I'd add that a if you have a solid lump, you need a biopsy. Just an ultrasound or a mammogram isn't good enough at that stage. It's difficult to detect the difference between a fibroadenoma, scar tissue, and cancer just by looking at an ultrasound or mammogram. Don't let anyone tell you, "you're too young." It's really not all that rare.

 

Just because you have a lump in your breast doesn’t mean you have cancer.

 

That is true. 4 out of 5 breast biopsies are benign. But that doesn't mean you can tell what kind of lump it is just by looking at it! That kind of thinking is dangerous! You can get some information from mammograms and ultrasounds, but you need a biopsy to be sure.

[snickelfritz]

Just a sidenote.... At my last physical, my doctor informed me they will do a baseline mammo next year at.....35. Then, yearly at 40. And I have no history. I was surprised... And dismayed. :tongue_smilie: I had not heard it was that early.

[emubird]

Just a sidenote.... At my last physical, my doctor informed me they will do a baseline mammo next year at.....35. Then, yearly at 40. And I have no history. I was surprised... And dismayed. :tongue_smilie: I had not heard it was that early.

 

And if you go to a different doctor, you may hear a different recommendation. They all seem to be getting info from different sources/studies. It may be that some doctors are more up on the current research while others are relying on what was being recommended 5 years ago. It seems to be changing fast.

 

What I wonder about is whether ultrasound or thermography are actually safer. In order to visualize something inside the body, you have to blast high energy something or other in to get a picture. Radiation is a problem because the high energy can blast apart DNA. (Although, most of the time, your DNA repair mechanisms put things back together.) If some other imaging technique is just as high energy, would it have the same effect on DNA? Or are these other techniques safer because they can get away with less energy to get a picture?

 

And is there any research on what DCIS does if not treated? Are there people with diagnosed DCIS who leave it untreated? Or is it always just removed as soon as it's found? If so, we may have no hard evidence that it's worth taking out. It might just sit there. Seems I'm hearing now (?) that some prostate cancers are better just left alone. Some grow so slowly that it's worse to fool with them than just leave them alone.

[lynn]

Without question it's a yearly thing for me.

[Sara R]

What I wonder about is whether ultrasound or thermography are actually safer.

 

Ultrasound is safe (as far as I know), but it is not used to screen (that is, to check asymptomatic women). It's used to check out lumps, not to check out the whole breast. As I linked above, thermography has not been shown to be effective at finding cancer.

[Sara R]

And if you go to a different doctor, you may hear a different recommendation. They all seem to be getting info from different sources/studies. It may be that some doctors are more up on the current research while others are relying on what was being recommended 5 years ago.

 

Emotion confuses the matter too. (And we women are nothing if not emotional creatures, right?) People look at the new recommendation to start mammograms at age 50 and then only every 2 years, and they think that money is keeping women from the best treatment and they are doomed to die if they don't get as mammograms starting as young as possible. They think that mammograms means early detection, when mammograms are early detection reliably only in older women. That's what these studies are saying. They aren't saying that young women don't get cancer. Clearly they do. That doesn't mean that a mammogram would have detected it earlier enough to make a difference. The scientists have studied it thoroughly and reported on their results. The backlash was huge.

 

But the answer that there is no good breast cancer screening method is not satisfactory. So people do mammograms even when it's not appropriate, for what amounts to emotional reasons. I think this is harmful because it leads to a false sense of security that can lead to its own harm.

[dancer67]

Peela and Negin:

 

Negin, first of all thank you very much for posting that very detailed information on mammograms.

 

Now I am conflicted again.

 

Peela, are the reasons you are not getting a mammo is because of what Negin posted?

 

Now, I have read "As long as you lead a healthy lifestyle".................The thing is. I am a smoker. A long time one at that. So I am not sure that constitutes one as a "healthy" lifestyle. Correct?

 

I am also afraid of "waking a sleeping giant". My MIL is an RN and has never had a mammogram in her life. But, she also is not on any meds.

 

I am.

 

I take High Blood pressure meds, depression meds, and Librax for IBS. I am also Anemic.

 

What to do, what to do??(And here I was all ready to go and get it done).

 

:confused:

[Marie in OR]

(I was very low risk: no family history, had 3 children and had nursed them for 40 months total, no history of the Pill, by the way. A very high percentage (something like 2/3?) of newly diagnosed patients don't have family history.)

 

Actually, the statistic is 90% of breast cancer has no genetic component.

It worries me when women say they don't need screening because they don't have a family history.

Like I said above, that doesn't mean that women in their 30s and 40s don't get breast cancer. They do. The question is, do mammograms detect it early for women that age? This study is saying, no, not really.

 

Yes, mammograms DO detect early cancers in that age group. Just not as well as in older women.

[Negin]

she has been VERY bothersome about me having a colonoscopy to check for cancer. First, there's no radiation involved, and 2nd, colonoscopy can be preventive in that small suspicious polyps can just be cut out at the time of screening.

But I'm VERY diligent about self examination. Even if one decides not to do a mammogram, don't give up on the monthly self-exam.

You might be interested in this book, Should I Be Tested for Cancer? by Dr. H. Gilbert Welch. I haven't read it. Is there a reason why she wants you to have a colonoscopy? Do you have family history, symptoms/problems (not trying to get personal here), or are over 50? Otherwise, I would also leave this alone. Just my humble opinion. I don't plan on having one of those anytime soon. I eat fiber like it's going out of style. No family history either. But if I didn't, or had symptoms, agreeing on colonoscopy.

 

Ladies, this book, which dh just finished and which I have yet to read, has a part on mammograms. He read me parts of it. Very, very interesting. You could just pop into a B&N store and read that part, or skim through it.

 

Maybe I'm misunderstanding. Mammograms are finding minute cancers and precancerous conditions. That's what DCIS is, essentially pre-cancer.

I don't understand. Can't you "change the inner environment" without a thermography?

This may be true, but where is the evidence that thermography is any better? As I understand it, as bad as mammograms are, they have been shown to be way more effective at detecting breast cancer than thermography: http://www.dslrf.org/breastcancer/content.asp?CATID=31&L2=1&L3=6&L4=0&PID=&sid=132&cid=659 According to that link, thermograms have been well studied, so it's not a matter of that.

Actually, mammograms do often find small cancers.

The first sentence of this quote is absolutely true. But it's not only because of genetic disease. I have no family history and no positive genetic testing. I think cancers are more vigorous in younger women because the rest of the young person's body is generally more vigorous.

Yeah, early detection would be nice for young women, but it generally doesn't happen, since there aren't any good tools to do it. "Early detection saves lives" is the old thinking that hasn't been proven true. Not all cancers are the same. There are scary fast cancers that have spread about as fast as your can find them. Here is Dr. Love on breast cancer detection: http://www.dslrf.org/breastcancer/content.asp?CATID=0&L2=1&L3=5&L4=0&PID=&sid=131&cid=506

Traditional science agrees with all of the above. I'd add that a if you have a solid lump, you need a biopsy. Just an ultrasound or a mammogram isn't good enough at that stage. It's difficult to detect the difference between a fibroadenoma, scar tissue, and cancer just by looking at an ultrasound or mammogram. Don't let anyone tell you, "you're too young." It's really not all that rare.

That is true. 4 out of 5 breast biopsies are benign. But that doesn't mean you can tell what kind of lump it is just by looking at it! That kind of thinking is dangerous! You can get some information from mammograms and ultrasounds, but you need a biopsy to be sure.

I can't answer your questions, since I didn't come up with any of the info myself. I got my info from various sources that I trust, such as Natural Solutions magazine, friends whom I trust and who are naturopaths - very well-informed, Dr. Nan Fuchs and her fan-tab-u-lous book - which, to me, is worth its weight in gold.

Again, for me personally, the radiation and squeezing is not a good thing. There are many articles on this in the Natural Solutions magazine site if you do a search. If I found an abnormal thermogram, then I would consider a mammogram. Just me.

 

Peela and Negin:

Negin, first of all thank you very much for posting that very detailed information on mammograms.

Now I am conflicted again.

Now, I have read "As long as you lead a healthy lifestyle".................The thing is. I am a smoker. A long time one at that. So I am not sure that constitutes one as a "healthy" lifestyle. Correct?

I am also afraid of "waking a sleeping giant". My MIL is an RN and has never had a mammogram in her life. But, she also is not on any meds.

I am.

I take High Blood pressure meds, depression meds, and Librax for IBS. I am also Anemic.

What to do, what to do??(And here I was all ready to go and get it done).

:confused:

You are most welcome. :)

Don't feel stressed about this. Read up on it if you can. Don't panic. Breathe. And pray about it or talk with people who are fair, if you can.

I'd love to hear what Peela has to say.

Do you do monthly self-exams? Sorry if you answered that already.

Do you have a family history?

Can you try to live as healthy as you can? There's a wonderful book "The Anti-Cancer Book" that's very intelligent, practical, and full of hope.

If I could afford it, I would buy this book for all my friends and loved ones. My dh says that it changed his life.

I can't tell you what to do. I can tell you to research and read more - and try to have an open mind (which you definitely seem to have, since oftentimes when I say this to some, you would think that I was saying the sky is green or something) ... It's okay if you take a few months with your decision. :grouphug:

Just want to add, that I always love your avatar. :D

 

If you or anyone wants specific lifestyle (diet, etc.) tips for breast cancer, let me know. This is all based on The Anti-Cancer book and Dr. Nan Fuchs's book above.

 

Just want to add that:

Discomfort, tenderness, and noticeable growth are normal especially around menstrual periods when estrogen levels change, it may be that the cysts disappear after the monthly period. However if the lump is hard, does not move freely and does not go away, check with a doctor immediately.

 

One should not necessarily think that just because someone in their family has cancer, you're going to get it.

Genes account for at most 15% of cancers, almost all the rest is due to diet and lifestyle factors.

A landmark New England Journal of Medicine study showed that children adopted at birth by parents who died of cancer before the age of 50 had the cancer risk of their adoptive parents, not of their biological ones. What gets passed on from one generation to the next are cancer-causing habits and environmental exposures, not just cancer-causing genes.

This finding indicates that the environment has the principal role in causing common cancers.

So, again, at most, genetic factors contribute 15% to our cancer risk. What matters for 85% of cancers is what we do -- or do not do enough of -- with our life.

Knowing that genetics are only a minor contribution to cancer helps us realize how much is in our power to help our body be a stronger partner in nourishing life and resisting cancer.

Believing that cancer is attributed to genes is a fatalistic idea but believing that cancer can be controlled by nutrition is a far more hopeful idea.

[Peela]

My info is all pretty similar to Negin's, yes.

The thing is, I see the medical establishment as doing many, many amazing and virtually miraculous things in some areas. But I do also see them as treating people as rather stupid and everyone the same...as in, all women need to get tested (with various recommendations from their 30s to 40s to 50s, yearly to 3yearly), because most women wont bother to check themselves monthly. An article in our newspaper recently stated a study which suggested that monthly checking is superior to all this medical interference, especially because of the radiation that xrays cause- plus, as Negin quotes, the other inherent dangers in mammograms such as bursting possible tumours, causing them to spread. Biopsies hold similar dangers.

 

Yes....mammograms do catch some cancers. And yes, even doctors accept they also cause some. It's a statistics thing. They are always working with the masses, not individuals. Yet we are all individuals.

 

I am someone who takes responsibility for my own health and I take it seriously. I check myself regularly- I know my own breasts better than any doctor- I know what they feel like intimately. 2 years ago I went to my doctor for a women's wellness check and my doctor reckoned she felt a possible lump. I couldn't feel anything, my husband could not feel anything, and I had to wait for 3 weeks of stress to get a mammogram. There was nothing- I have 43 year old firm breasts- she was not familiar with my breasts. So why would I trust my doctor again when my own intuition, my husbands intuition, and our own fingers (which is all she used) could detect nothing?

 

These things all feed on fear. And I encourage any woman at all who feel intuitively there might be a problem, to do something about it and not wait one more day....and I also encourage every woman to get REALLY in touch with her own body, and her own breasts. And to eat well, and follow cancer prevention stratgies. We are not victims here (the medical establishment tends to treat us as if we are)- there is a lot we can do to detect and prevent cancer OURSELVES....but because most women don't do that...we have massive government programs which actually financially benefit a lot of people. And i dont feel that the individuals who run these programs have bad intentions at all...but I am cynical about the intentions of multi nationals and I am cynical about recommendations that rake in a lot of money and are so general they do not take individuals into account.

 

I am into empowering women. I believe the medical establishment does not do that, generally speaking. We are taught to believe the latest study as fact, even though in 10 years, what is given as fact now may well be discredited completely. For example, there is a lot of info now about the dangers of mobile phone radiation, especially on children, while we have been told for years it is safe- just because there were no long term studies. Same with hormone replacement therapy.

 

The issue isn't really mammogram or no mammogram, to me, because i wouldnt want to discourage any individual from getting one if she somehow felt it was right for her to do so. The issue to me is whether you take responsbility for your own health, whether you are in tune with your own body, whether you love yourself enough to eat well and exercise, and have a healthy lifestyle...or at least be heading that way. I would rather see women take more repsonsibility and give up their power a lot less to the medical establishment including their local GP. We all have the internet...we can do the research. Many of us are experts in certain areas because our doctors do not have the time or inclination to research everything and stay up to date.

 

We are disempowered. For some people, getting a mammogram might be a step toward taking some care of themselves, because they normally put themselves last on the list and wouldnt know if their body changed. For others, such as myself, we already take repsonsibility, and take care, and are in tune and watch our bodies closely. I would not expose my healthy body to radiation unecessarily, and to me, yearly mammograms in my 40s is very unecessary when there are other options available. If I feel any possible issue, I will go for an alternative such as thermograph...before a mammogram...or I might decide to just do a mammogram as a one off to see. It's the cumulative effect of year after year of mammograms I am concerned about, because radiation is not a healthy thing.

 

Prevention is always better, of course, as well. Even doctors are now realising how much health and lifestlye is involved in cancer. But they still focus on testing because it is something they can do. It is up to each of us to take responsiblity and care for ourselves.

 

I would not stress overly about getting any single mammogram, Dancer. Either do it or dont...it will most likely NOT be a life and death thing either way. However, I woudl encourage you not to believe blindly what the doctors tell you, and to eat well even though you smoke, and to look at giving up smoking because that is a huge health risk. YOu can do it. I would just enourage you to take care of yourelf, because you really do deserve it- everone does- and no one- no doctor, no xray, no well meaing advice- can substitute for genuine self care. We women tend to put ourselves way too low on our list of daily priorities when we should be putting that oxygen maks on ourselves first- feed ourselves well, exercise well, take rest time and self care time as a priority in our lives. These will go a long way towards cancer prevention AND cancer detection. When you get in tune with yourself, you do notice when things change.

 

But I wouldn't also dream of discouraging you from getting a mammogram if you feel it would be a good idea, for you, in your particular situation.

[dancer67]

Negin,

 

I will absolutely look into those books you suggested. It is kind of funny that you mentioned these books, because my husband and I were JUST talking about how it seems that these days, there are more peanut allergies, aspergers, ADHD, obesity, girls *maturing* faster then we did, cancers etc....then years ago .

 

Which is what I believe, Peela was saying as well.

 

Why is this?

 

Is it because we live in a society of all this *new* technology, when in fact, some(or most) has been doing more harm then good?

 

Peela brings up so many good points. I think as women, we need to start taking back our bodies, and getting familar and in tune with them.

 

As far as eating healthy. I think about this all the time. There is SO much processed foods, and *meal in a box* these days. Wonder, does this have anything to do with the health crisis we have today?

 

My grandmother, drank goats milk, and unpasteurized milk, since she lived on a farm. She died at age 87.

 

Years ago, (Or even when I was a child in the early 70's), I do not remember children with SO many allergies, or having autism, or being obese.

 

We were at a county fair today, and we spoke to a gentlman who collects milk bottles. We spoke of the days when milk was delivered right to your door. And it was healthy and not pumped full of hormones.

 

What has happened?? What has gone wrong?

 

Don't misunderstand me. I think the medical advances we have made are tremendous and save lives. But OTOH, how much of it is really harming us?

 

As far as the mammogram issue, I am going to get the books that Negrin has suggested. Since this has always been a topic of interest to me.

 

And Peela, I appreciate everything you have posted.

 

As far as my avatar, I only wish I looked like that in real life:lol:

[Negin]

Peela, your post was brilliant and I truly agree with all that you said.

 

I will absolutely look into those books you suggested. It is kind of funny that you mentioned these books, because my husband and I were JUST talking about how it seems that these days, there are more peanut allergies, aspergers, ADHD, obesity, girls *maturing* faster then we did, cancers etc....then years ago .

Why is this?

Is it because we live in a society of all this *new* technology, when in fact, some(or most) has been doing more harm then good?

Peela brings up so many good points. I think as women, we need to start taking back our bodies, and getting familar and in tune with them.

As far as eating healthy. I think about this all the time. There is SO much processed foods, and *meal in a box* these days. Wonder, does this have anything to do with the health crisis we have today?

My grandmother, drank goats milk, and unpasteurized milk, since she lived on a farm. She died at age 87.

Years ago, (Or even when I was a child in the early 70's), I do not remember children with SO many allergies, or having autism, or being obese.

We were at a county fair today, and we spoke to a gentlman who collects milk bottles. We spoke of the days when milk was delivered right to your door. And it was healthy and not pumped full of hormones.

What has happened?? What has gone wrong?

Don't misunderstand me. I think the medical advances we have made are tremendous and save lives. But OTOH, how much of it is really harming us?

As far as my avatar, I only wish I looked like that in real life:lol:

I think you'd find "The Anti Cancer Book" of great interest and help - he talks about milk, hormones, and all of that. Milk and white sugar are amongst the top culprits for so many problems ranging from acne, asthma, allergies, girls developing far more quickly than before ... all the way up to cancer (white sugar is huge with cancer - cancer cells feed on sugar). The more Mediterranean and the more plant-based our diets, the better our overall health ... I'm not perfect either. I love the occasional dessert and I certainly don't stick to being good all the time. But I try. The less processed and the less animal foods - especially grain-fed - the better.

You're on the right track. Reading and researching really helps.

Yes, I wish I looked like your avatar also. :D :grouphug: :lol:

[Negin]

Just saw this:

 

To read what is arguably the first honest mammography information for women written by health professionals, go to the Web site of the Nordic Cochrane Centre, which also provides free access to the Cochrane review. The information is currently being translated into Spanish, Portuguese, Polish, Norwegian, Swedish, Finnish and Icelandic, and there are also plans for German and French translations.

[Peela]

Thanks Negin...I just read the summary. Thats interesting.

 

Here is the summary:

 

Authors’ conclusions

Screening is likely to reduce breast cancer mortality. As the effect was lowest in the adequately randomised trials, a reasonable estimate

is a 15% reduction corresponding to an absolute risk reduction of 0.05%. Screening led to 30% overdiagnosis and overtreatment,

or an absolute risk increase of 0.5%. This means that for every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will

have her life prolonged and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated

unnecessarily. Furthermore, more than 200 women will experience important psychological distress for many months because of false

positive findings. It is thus not clear whether screening does more good than harm. To help ensure that the women are fully informed

of both benefits and harms before they decide whether or not to attend screening, we have written an evidence-based leaflet for lay

people that is available in several languages on http://www.cochrane.dk.

[southcarolinamom]

I'm going with the adage "better safe than sorry" -- get the mammogram.

 

I've had one every year since 40... my insurance always pays for it.

[In2why]

I think recommendations might've changed? Because I had a baseline done at 35, with the next one scheduled for 40. I missed that one due to putting it off five months, then getting pregnant and now breastfeeding. I'm 42 and will definitely have one when LO weans. Y'all are scaring me. But sometimes that's a good thing!

 

 

I also had a baseline at 35. I waited until I was 42 for my next one even though my doctor kept reminding me. I thought since breast cancer didn't run in our family, and life was so busy it wasn't a big deal. They found 3 suspicious areas and I needed an ultrasound and biopsy. Luckily they weren't cancerous, just benign fluid filled cysts, but it was a tense week. The entire time I beat myself up for not going sooner, and if it had been cancer I don't know how I would have felt knowing that I gave it time to grow. I won't miss another mammogram.

[Capt_Uhura]

Yet something else to stress over.....I'm 43 and have never had a mammogram. I do have a lump that a well-respected doctor has checked out several times as well as my GP and GYN/OB and all were not worried about this lump. It's in my arm pit. I have had an ultrasound and that came out negative. For the past 10yrs, I've either been pregnant or breastfeeding so a mammogram was never feasible. I'm done now and I can't express any milk so I guess it's time to make the phone call. I'd feel comfortable getting a baseline and then waiting a few years for another. I have no risk factors and no family history. I do not-quitely monthly BSEs which is how I found the lump in my arm pit. Now that I"m not breastfeeding any longer, the lump is harder to detect.

 

I've also had a double endoscopy/colonoscopy and was informed that my pipes are good for 10years. 8-) Best report I ever had: See you in 10years.

[Negin]

However, I woudl encourage you not to believe blindly what the doctors tell you, and to eat well even though you smoke, and to look at giving up smoking because that is a huge health risk. YOu can do it. I would just enourage you to take care of yourelf, because you really do deserve it- everone does- and no one- no doctor, no xray, no well meaing advice- can substitute for genuine self care. We women tend to put ourselves way too low on our list of daily priorities when we should be putting that oxygen maks on ourselves first- feed ourselves well, exercise well, take rest time and self care time as a priority in our lives. These will go a long way towards cancer prevention AND cancer detection. When you get in tune with yourself, you do notice when things change.

Dancer67, not to scare you or anyone who smokes ... I agree that you CAN do this. Smoking is really bad when it comes to breast cancer. Some of the comments at the end of this article give extra tips and links on how to quit. Last I checked anyway. :grouphug: If you can quit smoking, you'll be doing so much for yourself and your loved ones.

[Negin]

Dancer67 and others, I keep regretting the fact that I posted that link. I don't want to worry you or anyone else. I guess the reason I did so is that I care. We all need to take care of ourselves in the best way that we possibly can :grouphug:. My apologies if I have caused worry or stress.

[dancer67]

Dancer67 and others, I keep regretting the fact that I posted that link. I don't want to worry you or anyone else. I guess the reason I did so is that I care. We all need to take care of ourselves in the best way that we possibly can :grouphug:. My apologies if I have caused worry or stress.

 

 

No worries Negrin. It is not a big surprise to me, becuase I assumed anyways that smoking carries a risk for many things. I actually just posted on tips on how to quit smoking.

 

I am going to pick a date, and start cutting back. Stop smoking in the car, then move on to other places where I normally smoke.

 

I have the E-Cigarette. But I am also looking into the nicorette inhaler. Although it still has nicotine, at least it does not have all the tar and junk that cigarettes have.

 

I have decided NOT to have a mammogram. I got both books, What the Dog Saw, and the other book about being tested for Cancer. Both excellent.

 

I am going to order Dr Nan Fuchs book next.

 

Thank you again for all of your help. Keep my in your thoughts as I move forward to quit smoking.

[Sara R]

Alcohol, even alcohol in moderation, also raises breast cancer risk. FYI.

 

(from a Mormon who has never smoked nor drank alcohol, and got breast cancer anyway...)

[Negin]

I have the E-Cigarette. But I am also looking into the nicorette inhaler. Although it still has nicotine, at least it does not have all the tar and junk that cigarettes have.

I have decided NOT to have a mammogram. I got both books, What the Dog Saw, and the other book about being tested for Cancer. Both excellent.

I am going to order Dr Nan Fuchs book next.

Thank you again for all of your help. Keep my in your thoughts as I move forward to quit smoking.

:grouphug: Yes, thinking of you a lot. I have specific breast cancer prevention tips (hope to not overwhelm for anyone who may be interested). We can all try our hardest to prevent it.

 

(from a Mormon who has never smoked nor drank alcohol, and got breast cancer anyway...)

:grouphug: So sorry, Sara. There are sadly no guarantees. I also don't drink or smoke. Never have. Breast cancer is so complex and complicated. There are many things that are beyond our control. My friend breastfed for a total of 9 years and also didn't smoke, drink, you name it - exercised - she's just been diagnosed. Again, no guarantees. The Anti Cancer Book is very good at giving specifics.

Iodoral is very helpful. I can give info more on this if anyone is interested.

[dancer67]

Thank you Negin.

 

BTW, are you a nurse/Dr.? You seem to be so knowledgable:001_smile: