Do I really NEED a mammogram every yr w/ no family history?

[HappyGrace]

Are there dangers associated with mammograms that often? We are pretty hands-off medically, mostly organic and natural, and are rarely sick, etc. I don't know enough about mammograms to say, but every year seems excessive to me with no family history.

 

(BTW, I am 42-had my first and only mammo at 40.)

[momofkhm]

Are there dangers associated with mammograms that often? We are pretty hands-off medically, mostly organic and natural, and are rarely sick, etc. I don't know enough about mammograms to say, but every year seems excessive to me with no family history.

 

Not a comment about the actual safety of mammograms, but only about 20% of women who get breast cancer have a family history so I don't think I'd go by that as a reason not to get a mammogram.

 

About 70-80% of breast cancers occur in women who have no family history of breast cancer. These occur due to genetic abnormalities that happen as a result of the aging process and life in general, rather than inherited mutations.

From http://www.breastcancer.org/symptoms/understand_bc/statistics.jsp

 

I have 2 personal friends who were diagnosed through mammograms in theirs 40's. Neither one, even being shown where the lump was, could feel it because it was so small. One is now a 10 year survivor. The other is still going through radiation. They both expect to live long lives as survivors.

 

So I get mammograms, yearly.

 

ETA: The hands off medically issue - I don't get flu shots. I don't have the kids get every immunization. I worked hard to lower my LDL to avoid statins. I'm not hands off, but neither do I go just cause they say to.

[freethinkermama]

I've been thinking about this lately. I didn't have one planned until I was 40 and then every 5 years or whatever they're suggesting now, but my doctor suggested a baseline this year (I'm 35) because I had been having a bit of an ache in the breast that used to get infected when I was nursing. Well, why not, I thought.

 

Well, it came back "suspicious." I have a follow-up next month.

 

I don't know what this is to say other than. Listen to your body, above everything else. If I hadn't had this crop up, I'd certainly wait between. And maybe I still will if this turns out to only be calcium deposits.

 

T.

[Negin]

No time for one of my usual lengthy replies right now. I haven't had one yet. I may not have one until I'm 50 or so. My mother had her first one at the age of 60 or so.

I'll write more later and share my research. Not saying what to do. Just what I plan on doing. I would never impose my thoughts as to what others should do.

I'm almost 43 and recently had my first breast thermogram. Love those. Also pretty much daily self-exams. Peela and I, are think, are on the same page about this. Get to know your own breasts. Know what feels right.

Again, more info later if anyone is interested.

[HappyGrace]

I am not good at doing self-exams-don't know what I'm looking for, and I'm fairly lumpy anyway. Even after having the doctor show me how to self-exam, I still don't know what I'm looking for exactly.

 

Are there dangers associated with mammos? Would every other year be enough to catch a cancer or is it faster growing than that? I am asking here because I know I will get unbiased opinions compared to what the doctor would say. They are saying every year to everyone, and I thought that was unnecessary this young.

 

I don't want to get them every year and then in five years they find out that mammos CAUSE cancer (or something else.)

[jld]

Dr. McDougall is against them: http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2009nl/oct/acs.htm

 

This says they can actually spread the cancer: http://www.naturalnews.com/010886.html

 

What a tough decision to make. I'm still not sure what I'll do, though I lean toward not doing them.

 

Good luck with this one!

[Joanne]

I can't answer for you. I will give you my current answer as a woman turning 45 in April.

 

I have not had a mammogram. There is a cancer history in our family: skin, lung, colon. I admit I worry more about my years having smoked (I'm quit 15 years now) and, more recently, having worked in bars.

 

We do not have a family history of reproductive cancers. I breastfed for *years*. I'm not convinced that early and regular mammograms are helpful/benign.

 

I've chosen not to have any at this point, but it's not an easy or comfortable decision. It wouldn't be an easy, comfortable decision if I made the choice to be screened, either. To me, it's a lot like the vaccine choice. Medical technology encourages a certain protocol - and that protocol is for profit, not altruistic.

[Mejane]

And then I read articles about how a lot of people are possibly being treated for growths that wouldn't have turned out to be a problem anyway. Obviously most people would rather err on the side of caution, but it does make me wonder.

 

 

 

I had this experience and it is why I have chosen not to do yearly mam's.

Edited February 11, 2011 by Mejane

[Brilliant]

Yes. You should have them every 1-2 years.

 

I was diagnosed last week with a non-palpable (couldn't have been detected by me or the doctors) cancer. It was found on a mammogram. I have no family history of breast or ovarian cancers, or other high-risk factors.

[Lolly]

I have chosen not to have them. It has been my long held belief that they do more harm than good. Research is starting to come forward that this could be the case. I thought the recommendations had just recently been changed? (Just checked, and they have.)

[Tabrett]

I will turn 40 this year. I have no intention of getting a mammogram. I might start getting them after I go through menopause, might. I don't plan on taking any hormones during menopause either.

 

But then again, I don't get flu shots, vaccinate my dc, go to the doctor unless we are really, really sick and I think it is going into their lungs or they have an accident (last year dd broke arm).

 

I try to avoid doctors as much as possible. On the other hand, I love going to chiropractors, health food stores and learning about how to stay healthy!

[v-girl]

Medical technology encourages a certain protocol - and that protocol is for profit, not altruistic.

 

No, it does not. It is there because scientists are trying to help detect diseases earlier (or prevent them - vaccines).

 

I supposed your chiropractor is broke and the health food store you shop at makes no profit whatsoever?

[Prairie~Phlox]

My mom was diagnosed at 40 with breast cancer. I am taking all precautions and I am 36. I've had a mammogram for the two years and will continue to do so. I am not being "fearful" but God has placed medical dr.s in this world for a reason and I do try and eat healthy and take care of myself as well. That's just my opinion.

[Tabrett]

No, it does not. It is there because scientists are trying to help detect diseases earlier (or prevent them - vaccines).

 

I supposed your chiropractor is broke and the health food store you shop at makes no profit whatsoever?

 

Hmmmm....I suppose you are talking to Joanne and me since I mentioned chiropractors and health food stores. I never mentioned anything about profit or altruism. I believe that our bodies are fantastic at healing its self if we don't overload it with chemicals and crappy food. I personally feel that people would be less sick if they ate healthy and exercised. Unfortunately, there are many people who would rather go to the doctor for a pill than put in the time to help their bodies heal themselves. One example is my uncle, who I love dearly! He was already having to monitor his blood sugar, but now he is having to do insulin shots because he would not stay away from carbs and sugar and refused to exercise!

 

I think most doctors care about their patients and I believe we need doctors. But I also think that going to a doctor and taking meds should be the LAST resort not the first place we turn to when we get sick. Accidents are another story! Doctors are the first person one should go to when they have an accident.

 

Early detection exams that might be dangerous? Vaccinations? If an outbreak occurs, I will take the chance on a vax. But without a real reason to subject myself and/or my family to exams or shots that might potentially be harmful, is a choice I have to weigh and research and make the best educated decision for me and my family.

 

I have no problem with people making money. I'm glad I have the freedom to choose who I give my money to and are not forced to subject me and my family to medical treatments we think are not in our best interests.

[Joanne]

No, it does not. It is there because scientists are trying to help detect diseases earlier (or prevent them - vaccines).

 

I supposed your chiropractor is broke and the health food store you shop at makes no profit whatsoever?

 

I don't have a chiropractor or a health food store. I'm quite mainstream.

 

Scientists, and the companies they work for, research for a variety of reasons, including profit.

[Negin]

Not sure if anyone wants to hear my very long answer. Oh well ... the beauty of the internet is that you can always scroll down and just ignore :).

My post will be very long and I do apologize. I have researched and thought about this for a few years. I'm never one to say what others should do or shouldn't do.

There are specific things one can eat, take, and do - to hopefully prevent breast cancer. If anyone is interested, I can post those.

GOOD 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

Your Life In Your Hands : Understanding, Preventing, and Overcoming Breast Cancer by Jane Plant

MAMMOGRAMS

When a test’s lifesaving benefit has been oversold to the public for over three decades—and the harms downplayed—any suggestions otherwise are often met with a firestorm of anger.

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.

 

This is from Peela, and I really hope she doesn't mind the fact that I copied and pasted what she wrote :):

“I see the medical establishment as doing many, many amazing and virtually miraculous things in some areas. But I 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 twice a year), because most women won’t bother to check themselves monthly. There is literature out there showing that monthly checking is superior to all this medical interference, especially because of the radiation that mammograms cause- plus, as stated below, the other inherent dangers in mammograms such as bursting possible tumors, 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. Two 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 husband’s 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 strategies. 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 don’t 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 wouldn’t 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 responsibility 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 responsibility 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 would not know if their body changed. For others, such as myself, we already take responsibility, and take care, and are in tune and watch our bodies closely. I would not expose my healthy body to radiation unnecessarily, and to me, yearly mammograms in my 40s is very unnecessary when there are other options available. If I feel any possible issue, I will go for an alternative such as a thermogram...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 realizing how much health and lifestyle 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 responsibility and care for ourselves.

I would not stress overly about getting any single mammogram. Either do it or don’t...it will most likely NOT be a life and death thing either way. However, I would 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 encourage you to take care of yourself, because you really do deserve it- everyone does- and no one- no doctor, no mammogram, no well-meaning 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 masks 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.”

[Negin]

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.

[SonshineLearner]

I think thermograms and MRIs are going to be the way to go. Our family has cancer with all of the members.. (breast or other.) My mom had 9 in her family. They ALL have had cancer now. I'm taking Modified Citrus Pectin, preventably, now as well as mushrooms (well, special Mushroom pills). My one aunt had a mammogram that came back as no problem. Found a lump herself 3 months later.... surgery... chemo... and dead in 13 months.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110201083337.htm

 

There's an article that's interesting.. there are many more :) I also am eating the diet for preventing or helping with cancer survival.

 

 

http://www.amazon.com/Anticancer-New-Way-Life/dp/0670021644/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1297401658&sr=8-1

 

(This one above...... Not as strict as the one below.... )

 

 

http://www.amazon.com/Natural-Strategies-Patients-Russell-Blaylock/dp/0758202210/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1297401928&sr=1-4

 

I think that the link directly above this... is the one my mom would get, if only one. The publishing date is further back than the top one... but he has had good success with his patients and knows even more than the book in the first link. In the first book, though... it is very inspirational.... and good info, too :)

 

The Modified Citrus Pectin

 

the place I got the MCP was Life Extension Foundation, http://www.lef.org/

 

 

For the Ezorb Calcium,,,, (which is also where we're getting the mushroom supplement. it's the only place where they remove, from clinical studies that are done, 100% of impurities??) I'm saying this from listening to my mom... but basically what I gathered, is usually there are some "bad stuff" in the other mushroom supplements... and that their is the "purest".... Cordyceps Medicinal Mushrooms/ The Marvilix

 

www.EZorbOnline.com If you'd like to order from here... (for calcium or mushrooms) I'd love to give you our distributor's info. He's great and has spent a long time with my mom. (We don't get credit or anything... I just appreciate him) His name is Larry... and I have his direct contact info.

Edited February 11, 2011 by NayfiesMama

[Negin]

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.

[Negin]

http://medicalconsumers.org/2001/12/01/a-critical-review-of-all-clinical-trials-shows-that-mammography-screening-could-cause-more-harm-than-good/

 

Mammography is not the only option.

Monthly breast-self examination (BSE)

Annual examination by a gynecologist or trained nurse

2:16 estrogen metabolite test

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 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

[Negin]

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

 

This article is found in various places online.

Edited February 11, 2011 by Negin in Grenada

[Negin]

There are so many books that I'd love to read. Too many books, too little time - this one is said to be particularly relevant to this topic.

 

Should I Be Tested for Cancer?

[Negin]

Our family has cancer with all of the members.. (breast or other.)

Carrie, I'm so sorry. :grouphug:

You're doing the right things and are reading good books. I haven't read the 2nd one, but I love the first one. Absolutely love it. Full of practical advice and most of all, full of hope. You're also taking some very good supplements.

I like what he says here:

 

We all carry cancer cells in us. But we all have natural defenses that generally prevent these cells from turning into an aggressive disease. These include our immune system, the part of our biology that controls and reduces inflammation, and the foods that reduce the growth of new blood vessels needed by developing tumors.

In the West, one out of three people will develop cancer. But two-thirds will not. For these people, their natural defenses will have kept cancer at bay. It’s essential for me to learn how to strengthen these defenses.

 

We can all create an anticancer biology for ourselves through the choices we make in our lives.

 

GENETIC FALLACY

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. :grouphug:

[Peela]

I had a Thermogram a few months ago now.

It was a great experience, and I felt empowered by it. The clinic now has a baseline to compare any future Thermograms I might have, to.

I learned more about my breasts during the thermogram than I ever did during a mammogram. It picks up all sorts of things. I was also taught breast care during my thermogram visit.

 

I am 43. No, I will not be getting mammograms unless I specifically feel drawn to getting one because there is a specific issue.

That does not mean I recommend other women don't get mammograms. They do pick up cancers and problems. But they are not risk free by any means- no amount of radiation is safe. Repeated exposure to xrays causes cancer in a certain % of the population. That % is always considered a satisfactory risk statistically, hence it is not advertised.

In Australia mammograms are recommended every 2nd year after the age of 50, not 40, so take that into account. From age 40 women can get a free mammogram but they are not specifically recommended. 75% of breast cancers are after the age of 50.

 

I love science, but it cuts you up into little pieces. I am a whole person. Science does not allow for intuition. If I felt drawn to get a mammogram, I would get one in a flash. I don't. I researched and found an alternative that satisfied me- thermograms.

Its up to everyone to do what feels right for themselves and to take responsiblity for themselves.

[Dolphin]

I have no family history of Cancer of any kind. I had a breast reduction just over a year ago, they biopsy everyone when they do that. Turns out I have Atypical Lobular hyperplasia. I will have yearly mammograms until I am 40. Then I will also have yearly MRI's so every 6 months my breasts are being looked at.

 

One thing to look at is that IF you develop breast cancer and you are having yearly mammograms chances are they will catch it early. If they catch it early, most of the time the treatment is a lot less. A lumpectomy may be all you need if it is caught early. (Rather than a full mastectomy) Also, if it is caught early it greatly reduces your need for chemotherapy and or radiation.

 

I was worried after I got the results until I talked to the Oncologists. She explained that with how often they would be taking pictures of my breasts, that if something cropped up I would most likely just have to go in and get it removed.

 

I don't like being poked and prodded, and we don't go over board for medical stuff, except preventative. If I can avoid a lot of medical stuff down the road it is worth it for me.

[HappyGrace]

Thank you all so much for sharing your info, and your personal stories! I am slowly reading through all the good info here to be better informed! (Thanks, Negin, for the large amount of excellent info!)

[Negin]

I had a Thermogram a few months ago now.

It was a great experience, and I felt empowered by it. The clinic now has a baseline to compare any future Thermograms ... I learned more about my breasts during the thermogram than I ever did during a mammogram. It picks up all sorts of things. I was also taught breast care during my thermogram visit.

:iagree: That was my experience also.

 

That does not mean I recommend other women don't get mammograms. They do pick up cancers and problems. But they are not risk free by any means- no amount of radiation is safe. Repeated exposure to xrays causes cancer in a certain % of the population. That % is always considered a satisfactory risk statistically, hence it is not advertised.

Very well said.

 

In Australia mammograms are recommended every 2nd year after the age of 50, not 40, so take that into account. From age 40 women can get a free mammogram but they are not specifically recommended. 75% of breast cancers are after the age of 50.

Very interesting. I may do that myself, if I choose to have a mammogram then. Otherwise, I may just go for annual thermograms or so, self-checks, etc. I'll see, but I really like this approach. There's no breast cancer in my family, not that that's a great form of protection, since most breast cancers are not genetic. One of my closest friends - is in her late 50s - her mother had breast cancer and healed mostly naturally and has been cancer-free for over 20 years. Anyway, this friend, whose own mother had breast cancer, has never had a mammogram. Not saying everyone should do this, by any means.

 

I love science, but it cuts you up into little pieces. I am a whole person. Science does not allow for intuition. If I felt drawn to get a mammogram, I would get one in a flash. I don't. I researched and found an alternative that satisfied me- thermograms.

Its up to everyone to do what feels right for themselves and to take responsiblity for themselves.

:iagree:

[Mejane]

No, it does not. It is there because scientists are trying to help detect diseases earlier (or prevent them - vaccines).

 

 

 

Glad you've had such positive experiences, however I tend to agree with Joanne to a large extent. Anecdotally, I was browbeaten by doctors into a stereotactic biopsy for minor calcifications, and was told outright by the technician that they had increased her patient load from one or two biopsies per day to eight because, and I quote, "They need to pay for this multi-million dollar machine."

 

There is a LOT of unnecessary testing going on in the name of profit. To think any other way would be naive.

[kalanamak]

After looking at the survival stats, I got one when I was trying to get pregnant in my 40s, and only for that reason. I would have stopped trying if I had breast cancer. I haven't bothered with a mammo since. The "early mammo" advice is being pruned back, but many still clamor for them.

 

Money and profit thoughts aside, breast cancer is a big lawsuit loser for the medical profession, and you push the slip to everyone, as you will not prevail in a breast cancer case if you don't. Push the slip, let the patient decide. It is a more emotional disease than most.

 

A man at work's wife had an abnormal mammo recently. He was in a panic because they were "whisked back for additional film STAT in the morning, then a needle bx. the next day, and a surgical consult after hours the day after that." It is likely, very likely, a benign lesion, with pathology showing likely fibroadenoma but can't rule out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllodes_tumor.

 

However, the RUSH, the COME IN NOW, did a real number on both of them, and it is because of CYA. Because this is the culture out here, I am completely amazed by some members here who are poo-poo'd and put off for months over a lump they tell the doc is growing. Out here, if you have anything but a completely normal mammo, tie your bonnet stings tight and grasp the mane with both hands, 'cause this horse is going to move.

(OTOH, when my bladder fell out, I had a two week wait to see the surgeon, and a two week wait for OR space ... painful, bedridden, and eating up my sick leave .)

[melissel]

I've been thinking about this lately. I didn't have one planned until I was 40 and then every 5 years or whatever they're suggesting now, but my doctor suggested a baseline this year (I'm 35) because I had been having a bit of an ache in the breast that used to get infected when I was nursing. Well, why not, I thought.

 

Oh man! I've been having this same thing, and the NP I saw recently kind of blew off my concerns. Your post makes me think I should take it over to my regular GYN for discussion.

 

:grouphug: I hope your follow-up shows that nothing serious is going on.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

No time for one of my usual lengthy replies right now. I haven't had one yet. I may not have one until I'm 50 or so. My mother had her first one at the age of 60 or so.

I'll write more later and share my research. Not saying what to do. Just what I plan on doing. I would never impose my thoughts as to what others should do.

I'm almost 43 and recently had my first breast thermogram. Love those. Also pretty much daily self-exams. Peela and I, are think, are on the same page about this. Get to know your own breasts. Know what feels right.

Again, more info later if anyone is interested.

 

 

Negin, I was just going to ask you last week for your thoughts on mammograms. I got three (count 'em....3!!!) 'birthday cards' from area hospitals, all of them wanting to squeeze my bits in a large contraption. I still havn't scheduled it. I'm just not sure.

 

But, I AM going bra-free as much as possible right now! :tongue_smilie:

[Mrs Mungo]

My aunt was 42 when she was diagnosed with breast cancer by mammogram. Neither she nor her doctor could feel anything. There was no family history before that.

 

My sister was diagnosed at 29, it wasn't diagnosed until she could feel it. It was large and aggressive. She now has stage four cancer, it has spread to her hips, her shoulders and her spine. She has a lot of pain, and has trouble walking now. She has a nine year old daughter.

 

I get yearly mammograms *and* an MRI every 2 years.

[Tabrett]

But, I AM going bra-free as much as possible right now! :tongue_smilie:

 

Does going bra free help prevent breast cancer?

[swimmermom3]

I have mixed feelings about the posts here. I watched my mom go through chemotherapy. I am watching a friend go through her second bout with breast cancer. She is losing. One of our swim moms lost her battle in January. Another one is currently in chemotherapy. My fear is that some will read what is here and take no proactive measures whatsoever. I know too many women who have danced with the real thing. For some, the dance is over. Please do not use this board as your source for medical information. Use it as a springboard. Research from multiple sources. Just like you teach your kids, look at the validity and the credentials of your sources. If you cannot trust your doctor, ob-gyn, or naturopath, get a new one.

[Mejane]

My fear is that some will read what is here and take no proactive measures whatsoever. I know too many women who have danced with the real thing. For some, the dance is over. Please do not use this board as your source for medical information. Use it as a springboard. Research from multiple sources. Just like you teach your kids, look at the validity and the credentials of your sources. If you cannot trust your doctor, ob-gyn, or naturopath, get a new one.

 

This is very good advice. My view is based on my personal experience, and my own research and feelings about conventional medicine. I would not want anyone to make healthcare decisions based on that.

[swimmermom3]

My aunt was 42 when she was diagnosed with breast cancer by mammogram. Neither she nor her doctor could feel anything. There was no family history before that.

 

My sister was diagnosed at 29, it wasn't diagnosed until she could feel it. It was large and aggressive. She now has stage four cancer, it has spread to her hips, her shoulders and her spine. She has a lot of pain, and has trouble walking now. She has a nine year old daughter.

 

I get yearly mammograms *and* an MRI every 2 years.

 

Mrs. M., I am so very sorry.:grouphug:

[Joanne]

I have mixed feelings about the posts here. I watched my mom go through chemotherapy. I am watching a friend go through her second bout with breast cancer. She is losing. One of our swim moms lost her battle in January. Another one is currently in chemotherapy. My fear is that some will read what is here and take no proactive measures whatsoever. I know too many women who have danced with the real thing. For some, the dance is over. Please do not use this board as your source for medical information. Use it as a springboard. Research from multiple sources. Just like you teach your kids, look at the validity and the credentials of your sources. If you cannot trust your doctor, ob-gyn, or naturopath, get a new one.

 

I have lost family members to cancer. My mom was one of them. It was that experience that helped shape my own feelings on this issue. The details of that opinion are not why I am posting; just that pain as a result of cancer in loved ones does not have a prescribed destination.

 

I can't think of one poster on this board who would wholly formulate their decision in this regard based on this thread.

[swimmermom3]

Yes. You should have them every 1-2 years.

 

I was diagnosed last week with a non-palpable (couldn't have been detected by me or the doctors) cancer. It was found on a mammogram. I have no family history of breast or ovarian cancers, or other high-risk factors.

 

 

OC Mom, please take care of yourself. Sending you thoughts of health and healing.

[DianeW88]

I have mixed feelings about the posts here. I watched my mom go through chemotherapy. I am watching a friend go through her second bout with breast cancer. She is losing. One of our swim moms lost her battle in January. Another one is currently in chemotherapy. My fear is that some will read what is here and take no proactive measures whatsoever. I know too many women who have danced with the real thing. For some, the dance is over. Please do not use this board as your source for medical information. Use it as a springboard. Research from multiple sources. Just like you teach your kids, look at the validity and the credentials of your sources. If you cannot trust your doctor, ob-gyn, or naturopath, get a new one.

 

Amen!! Not even those of us who are medical professionals are qualified to give you medical advice on a message board. Always check with your own doctor, who knows your history, risks and general state of health. Do not trust websites on the internet to be your doctor. And, even when seeing a medical professional on something as serious as this issue is....a second opinion by another trusted physician is always warranted. Maybe even a third if you've been diagnosed with something.

[v-girl]

Amen!! Not even those of us who are medical professionals are qualified to give you medical advice on a message board. Always check with your own doctor, who knows your history, risks and general state of health. Do not trust websites on the internet to be your doctor. And, even when seeing a medical professional on something as serious as this issue is....a second opinion by another trusted physician is always warranted. Maybe even a third if you've been diagnosed with something.

 

Wise advice.

[Sara R]

You could just go with the big study that came out a year or two ago. That said that the scientific evidence said you shouldn't bother with a mammogram until age 50, and then just every two years.

 

Cancer definitely happens to women under age 50. I'm one of them, and there are several other women on the board (unfortunately) that can testify to that. Breast cancer is the top killer of white women ages 35-64, and breast cancer is top cause of cancer deaths from ages 35-54. I was given a 50% chance of surviving as long as I have...

 

The problem is that mammograms don't do a good job of detecting cancer in young women. They need another way of detecting cancer in young women. I think that thermography have been studied extensively for decades, and science isn't endorsing them, so I don't think the answer is there.

 

Also, don't let "no family history" give you any reason for complacency. 85% of women diagnosed with breast cancer (including me) also have no family history.

Edited February 12, 2011 by Sara R

[Mejane]

Breast cancer is the top killer of white women ages 35-64, and breast cancer is top cause of cancer deaths from ages 35-54. I was given a 50% chance of surviving as long as I have...

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but I don't see cancer deaths broken down by type on the chart you linked, and from my reading lung cancer is the number one cancer killer of women. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Hedgehog]

Dr. McDougall is against them: http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2009nl/oct/acs.htm

 

This says they can actually spread the cancer: http://www.naturalnews.com/010886.html

 

What a tough decision to make. I'm still not sure what I'll do, though I lean toward not doing them.

 

Good luck with this one!

 

I have also heard that mammograms can cause cancer or make it worse if it's on the brink. To me, it makes no sense to blast the body with radiation unnecessarily, when we KNOW that radiation can cause cancer!

 

I've been told that MRI scans are much better at detecting cancers, with far less risk. Trouble is, they're much more expensive, too.

[momof3sofar]

I too am someone who was diagnosed with breast cancer this past year at age 43 with no family history. My cancer was not palpable to neither myself nor any of the doctors who knew where it was after the mammogram.

 

The problem is that by the time a lump can be felt it has been growing for most likely MANY years. Mammograms are not the only answer but thankfully for me it caught my cancer early enough for me to feel confident to sing praises of mammograms for the next 20 years (unless of coarse I get hit by a bus crossing the street before then). :lol:

 

No one should do any medical procedure out of fear, but not doing the test just because you don't feel a lump isn't a good plan either. The earlier a cancer (of any sort) is found the better your odds of survival.

 

I also want to make 1 point about the DCIS and mammograms possibly causing them to spread because of the compression. DCIS needs to make a genetic jump to be able to exsist outside of the duct, it can not ever set up camp or spread just because it was "squished" or biopsied. It does not have the capability to do that. It may or may not ever make that gentic change, some people can live with DCIS all their lives but no one yet knows what causes some DCIS to make that final leap to invasive cancer. DCIS is still cancer, it is just cancer that lives inside the ducts it can be small or very large, it can not jump from one breast to the other nor can it survive outside the duct until it makes that final genetic change.

 

Please do your research and make your own decisions. I for one am glad that I didn't wait more than 2 years between my mammograms, even though I had no intention of making an appointment this year. (only made it because my friend, who is also my NP and a BC survior guilted me into it)

 

Dawn

[Mrs Mungo]

Mrs. M., I am so very sorry.:grouphug:

 

Thank you. All we can do at this point is hope and pray and pray some more.

 

The problem is that mammograms don't do a good job of detecting cancer in young women. They need another way of detecting cancer in young women.

 

This is true. The breasts of younger women are more dense *and* you often don't have a baseline to start with. That's why my doctor recommended an MRI and to start mammograms now. The MRI works really well for detecting cancer and will give you the all clear for the mammogram.

 

I've been told that MRI scans are much better at detecting cancers, with far less risk. Trouble is, they're much more expensive, too.

 

Given my history, my insurance will pay for a yearly mammogram and a yearly MRI. Everyone has to do their own risk/benefit analysis, but it's worth it to me with my family history.

[Sara R]

Look on page 40 of this link. Lung cancer is indeed the top killer overall, but breast cancer kills more women from ages 35-54.

 

If I live to 54, my kids will be grown and I will have done most of what I came here on earth to do (although my 54-year-old self might disagree). If I have to die then, it will be less of a tragedy than death in my 30s would have been. I think that death-in-general is not the enemy. We're all gonna die. Premature death is the enemy, and a death of heart disease at 80 or even 65 is not the same thing as a death of breast cancer at 32.

[Peela]

I agree that no one should take anything said here as definitive health advice. My encouragement is always to do your own research and that might also include using doctors and conventional therapy. I just suggest that one takes responsibility for oneself, which is something that the medical profession in general actively discourages in many ways.

The one issue I haven't see touched upon, and i dont know if it might hit a sore spot in some people, but, no one is a complete victim here and cancer does not develop in an isolated environment without its ground being fertile, so to speak. Thats not to say anyone is to blame- its not about blame- its about taking responsibility anyway.

There are many causes to cancer and some are well within our control- diet and lifestyle, exposure to radiation and toxins, stress etc The medical profession still barely acknowledges that, yet it is well researched.

My approach as a preventative one is not to rely on mammograms because they are truly not a preventative measure- they are just the best the medical system has come up with- they are diagnostic, not preventative. If they find something, you already have it.

My encouragement is to take a preventative and proactive approach, and I think mammograms might provide for some people a false sense of security- that is the other side of the coin. They might feel they are taking care of themselves by having a mammogram- but taking care of oneself involves a lot more than that.

And anyone who took themselves off for a mammogram at a younger age, and was positively diagnosed, might well have been following an inner knowing on some level, and that is always to be trusted. I would do the same, no matter my "beliefs" around it all. I understand many people might not trust "inner knowings" but I know many people have saved their own lives because of them.

Its a complex issue and every situation is individual.

[momof3sofar]

I am not going to argue about if my lifestyle is to blame for my cancer or not...but I would like some of you who feel that living a certain way or only eating certain things or exercizing a certain number of hours is the way to avoid getting cancer to spnd some time over on the BreastCancer dot Org forum. Read all about real women who are amazing athletes who treated their bodies like temples, had no history of breast cancer in their family and yet are still on there posting and some of them have advanced stages of BC.

 

BC doesn't care who you are or what you do, if it is in you, it will grow. It could come from something you eat, something you drink, something you breath, a mutaint gene that developed inutero, who knows. Telling someone that we caused our cancer because we didn't eat right, or exercize right, or whatever it is you feel is a guarentee to keep it away hurts! It hurts A LOT! I also believe it hurts the women on the BC forum who are stage IV and DID do all the things they have been told to do.

 

I guess since I am now living with it, I will just have to agree to dissagree with you on those points. I also will pray that you indeed never have to hear the words "you do have breast cancer, and we believe it is XXXX stage".

[Liz CA]

Just wanted to say that Thermography may also be an option; nothing touches your body during a thermography. A lady here on the board recently posted that thermography showed her cancer but mammography had not picked it up.

[lovinmyboys]

Here are some good articles written by a breast cancer surgeon.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=6940

 

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=1926