anyone not get mammograms as recommended?

[butterflymommy]

I once read that yearly mammograms increase a woman's breast cancer risk due to the radiation exposure during the procedure... is there any factual concern in this? And also that mammograms are not necessarily a dependable way to identify malignant tumors.

 

My mum was dxed with breast cancer last year and is in remission. She is going on about how I have to start having mammograms at age 40 (I'm 38 now) but I'm very reluctant to do so.

 

Her cancer is estrogen based and not considered by her dr to be the kind linked to the breast cancer gene. My aunt was dxed with ovarian cancer the same year and had genetic testing done for the breast cancer gene (insurance wouldn't cover for my mum) and she doesn't have it.

 

Both my mum and aunt had a number of risk factors that I don't have.

 

Does anyone have any opinions one way or the other? thanks.

[arstephia]

I have done the research, and I would rather risk the small amount of radiation and catch the tumor early than not have the tests and catch it too late. My BFF died of breast cancer and even though I don't really have risk factors, I got my first mammo at 35, again at 40, and will get one every other year from this point on. If I my mother had breast cancer, I wouldn't hesitate getting a regular mammo.

[DaffodilDreams]

I would get a baseline done now and then see how you feel about following the guidelines when you turn 40. With breast cancer rates so high, I'm afraid to NOT get regular screenings.

 

ETA: Have you researched digital mammography to see if that would be a better fit for your comfort level?

Edited March 3, 2012 by kimmie38017

[Marie in OR]

Most women who get breast cancer have NO known risk factors. The biggest risk factor is getting older, and being a woman. Unfortunately, you now have two close relatives who have had breast cancer, gene or no, so that is a pretty big risk right there.

 

Digital mammography has less radiation that traditional, and is becoming more and more readily available. I would definitely get a base-line mammogram now, then every year past 40.

 

I had no know risk factors, and a mammogram found a small tumor when I was 45. I had both estrogen positive breast cancer (DCIS) and an aggressive, non-estrogen tumor. It was caught early, so 4 years later I have no evidence of disease. A mammogram saved my life, for sure.

[Pegasus]

I would get a baseline done now and then see how you feel about following the guidelines when you turn 40.

 

Yes, exactly. Get a baseline. That is what they will have to compare later images against to see if there are any changes. THEN you can decide, with your doctor, how often you should have them. Not all doctors advice annual, by the way. A friend of mine had a couple annuals and then her doctor told her that she could have them every other year until she was 50.

 

There is some disagreement about the efficacy of mammograms. Apparently, there are some cancers that are discovered and aggressively treated, that would never have been a problem. The truth is, there is a LOT about cancer that we just don't understand yet.

 

Still, the best that we can do is with the understanding we have today. Hopefully, our daughters and granddaughters will have many more clear answers.

 

Pegasus

[Sara R]

Just because they don't have the BRCA gene doesn't mean they don't have other breast cancer genes that have not yet been identified. You have a family history, which is more than I had when I was diagnosed with stage IIIC breast cancer at age 32. Digital mammograms use much much less radiation than earlier mammograms. Thermograms have been well studied but not proven to detect cancer.

 

Mammograms are not the magic anti-breast-cancer bullet--we need something else that is better at detecting cancer early in younger women. But it is all that we have at this point. Breast cancer is nothing to trifle with. A mammo isn't a big deal.

[Catwoman]

 

I had no know risk factors, and a mammogram found a small tumor when I was 45. I had both estrogen positive breast cancer (DCIS) and an aggressive, non-estrogen tumor. It was caught early, so 4 years later I have no evidence of disease. A mammogram saved my life, for sure.

 

I'm so glad you're cancer-free, Marie. :grouphug:

 

I get the regular mammograms. I have known women whose lives were saved by early detection, as well as a few who "didn't have time" for mammograms, and who aren't here today because their cancer wasn't discovered until it was too late. :(

[Negin]

I'm almost 44 and have yet to have one.

I do daily self-checks and go for thermograms about once a year. I've only one thermogram so far, mind you. I'll be doing that every year.

Not sure when I'll start mammograms. Maybe 50, maybe later. Definitely if I notice anything.

I spent a long, long time researching and reading up on all this - weighing all the pros and cons. I recommend you do this also. I can share my detailed info with you if you wish.

There are lots of threads on this here and you can do a search as well. Peela, and I, and a few others, were in the non-mammogram group - the ones who haven't ruled them out completely, but won't have them quite yet.

I'd never tell someone to not get one. That's their own personal decision. One should do what one feels comfortable with.

Again, if you'd like me to share my info, let me know and I can post here.

[Bluegoat]

There have been some studies lately that have suggested that mammograms are less efficacious than had been thought. The WHO reccomendation is to start screening at 50 every two years.

 

The main disadvantage of starting earlier are that there tend to be a lot of positive results that are acted upon, but would have resolved on their own or are in fact not dangerous at all.

[Catwoman]

Negin, I'm in the "pro-mammo" group, but I'd be very interested in reading the info you have, if it's not too much trouble to post it, and it could be very helpful to many people here who are on the fence about whether or not to have regular mammograms. :001_smile:

[LizzyBee]

I usually get one every other year when I have my bone density test. If I didn't need the bone density test, I might stretch it out to every 3 years because I am not high risk. OTOH, after stretching out my routine physical to nearly 3 years the last time, only to be dx'd with chronic leukemia that I'd probably had for at least 2 years, I'm a little more paranoid about regular check-ups. At my last mammo/bone density test in August, the radiology center went ahead and made me an appt for my next annual mammo. The center is just across the street from my office, so I'll probably keep the appt.

[DianeW88]

Just because they don't have the BRCA gene doesn't mean they don't have other breast cancer genes that have not yet been identified.

 

:iagree: I have a neighbor who was diagnosed at 37. Her mother had it 15 years before. Neither tested positive for the BRCA gene. The oncologist just shrugged and said, "Do you really think there are only one or two gene mutations that cause breast cancer? We just haven't discovered the others yet. You have a family history...you're high risk." Get screened regularly...and you might want to add an ultrasound to your mammogram.

 

My mother died from ovarian cancer. I get an ultrasound every year to check my ovaries (because that cancer is almost never discovered until it's too late), and a digital mammogram. Consult with your GYN and see what he or she recommends. And then follow through with it.

[Negin]

To the OP, I have lots of tips and info on lowering estrogen levels, one of my major concerns also. I can share that if you or anyone's interested.

 

Negin, I'm in the "pro-mammo" group, but I'd be very interested in reading the info you have, if it's not too much trouble to post it, and it could be very helpful to many people here who are on the fence about whether or not to have regular mammograms. :001_smile:

Okay, here goes. Again, not telling anyone to not have one. Personal decision.

My dh read What the Dog Saw by Malcolm Gladwell, one of our favorite authors, and he has an entire chapter, or most of a chapter about mammograms in there. Very interesting. This is the only book of his that I have yet to read. Read and loved all the others.

This book was brought to my attention on this forum (or maybe it was another forum) a while back.

Again, I have lots and lots of info on prevention, diet, lifestyle, etc. if anyone's interested. I have posted it here before. You can do a search. I can also post again.

 

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 (http://www.cochrane.dk), 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.

This from Peela - boy, do I miss Peela. :tongue_smilie:

“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.â€

 

“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.

It’s a complex issue and every situation is individual.â€

[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 screeningâ€

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.

 

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

[Negin]

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: 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

 

I have lots and lots and lots more info ... but that's it for now to avoid overwhelming further. :grouphug:

[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

[Michelle in AL]

I am a cancer nurse and studying to be a nurse practitioner.

 

I'll tell you what I know.

 

Getting cancer is multifactorial. On average it takes about 4 "hits" to develop disease. Examples of hits can be genes, HIGHER dose radiation, medications, diet, chemicals etc.

 

There used to be 2 known breast CA genes BRCA1 and 2. There are several more genetic markers that have been found and are being investigated. That means that in families where there are multiple related cancers (ovarian, breast etc) that there may be more genes that have yet to be identified that put you at risk.

 

For someone in your situation you have to weigh the risks. The risk from not detecting breast cancer in its earliest stages may be more increased for you than not having one and being diagnosed with more advanced disease if that were to occur.

 

I have several cousins and an aunt with breast cancer. I've had mammograms and a biopsy since I was 34 due a lump that looked very cancerous. It ended up being negative but I had to have mammos every 6 mos for 2 yrs then yrly after. For me I feel much more comfortable knowing I have no OBVIOUS signs of cancer on my yearly mammogram that not knowing. I want to live and see my kids grow old, and I've seen way too many breast cancer patients to risk not getting one.

 

There are a lot more things you can do to decrease your risk of breast cancer, that would be more effective than avoiding mammorgrams. These include: avoid obesity, don't take oral contraceptives (although they do protect against ovarian and endometrial CA), avoid high fat diet and excessive alcohol, avoid pesticides, solvents, walking 1 hr/day and additional exercise.

 

I would recommend focusing on diet and exercise and getting mammos.

[jenL]

Negin, thank you for posting all of your research. My dr. recommended that I get a mammogram about 9 months ago at my yearly check-up. The form is still hanging on my fridge because I am so torn as to whether or not I need to get one done (I am 38). I'm trying to research it from all sides, so your information is very helpful.

[Scarlett]

My mother is a breast cancer survivor. (8 years since diagnosis). Her lump was found by a GP when she went in to complain about (another) superficial spot on her breast. At the time he felt it a mammogram couldn't even detect it. 3 months later it was 2 cm.

 

So I am torn....I get yearly mammos, but I don't really trust them.

[Negin]

Negin, thank you for posting all of your research. My dr. recommended that I get a mammogram about 9 months ago at my yearly check-up. The form is still hanging on my fridge because I am so torn as to whether or not I need to get one done (I am 38). I'm trying to research it from all sides, so your information is very helpful.

:grouphug: I hear you. My doctor said the same thing. I read, researched, read more, etc. - talked with dh who's very scientific-based/epidemiology background, - and in the end, decided, that for me, to wait a while. I'm trying my hardest to focus on prevention - eating right, exercise, lymphasizing daily or as often as I can, all that sort of stuff. :grouphug:

[In the Rain]

:bigear:

 

Thanks for posting this question. I've been pondering the issue for a month or so. I just had my first mammogram at 40. The doctor wants me to get one every year, and I've been wondering if that is really necessary. I get Dr Mercola's emails, and there have been several lately about mammograms increasing the risk of breast cancer.

[Happy]

I was diagnosed with breast cancer in early December from a mammogram. The type of tumor I have is rarely felt until it is very large...it tends to be like a loose mass of spaghetti or a tangle of vines. Rather sneaky in how is grows, in fact. A sharp-eyed radiologist saw enough to raise suspicion and called me back in.

 

Even after the biopsy determined the diagnosis, none of my doctors could really feel where the rest of the mass was.

 

I did not have regular mammograms-- because I was terrified of what would be found. I lost my mom to this disease. (Yes, Ostrich/sand. I know.) I'm darn fortunate a friend nagged me into going in.

 

And I'd worked hard on prevention...exercise, better eating, avoid toxins when possible, and doing regular self checks...while I'm not BRACA positive, like another poster's doctor, my doctor said we just haven't found the correct gene yet. Genetics probably plays a huge roll in my cancer...mom with breast, her brother with an odd liver cancer, their dad with prostate, his mom with something--I remember my mom talking about it. Turns out the women whose father had leukemia (raising hand here) are more likely to have the type of breast cancer I do. Sigh. Can't win here...

 

A baseline when you are 35ish is a good start. Don't neglect it. Whether mine might have been found a year earlier or not no one knows, but mine had spread to one lymph node so I'm currently riding the chemo express. It's not fun. Found before spreading I would have had simple surgery and radiation.

 

To say I'm encouraging more women to get regular mammograms is an understatement. ;)

[In the Rain]

A baseline when you are 35ish is a good start. Don't neglect it. Whether mine might have been found a year earlier or not no one knows, but mine had spread to one lymph node so I'm currently riding the chemo express. It's not fun. Found before spreading I would have had simple surgery and radiation.

 

To say I'm encouraging more women to get regular mammograms is an understatement. ;)

 

Good luck in your treatment. :001_smile::grouphug:

[Brilliant]

...

 

I had no know risk factors, and a mammogram found a small tumor when I was 45. I had both estrogen positive breast cancer (DCIS) and an aggressive, non-estrogen tumor. It was caught early, so 4 years later I have no evidence of disease. A mammogram saved my life, for sure.

 

Me, too. Mine was found last year on my second routine mammogram, when I was "only" 43. I almost waited another year; so glad I didn't.

[JeneralMom]

I am 40 and have never had one. Once, my midwife told me that the majority of cancers she had seen (she worked in an ob/gyn office) were detected by the woman's partner or the woman herself during a regular exam. I am no anti-mammogram, I just haven't gotten one. None of the females on either side of my family have had any kind of breast or ovarian cancer (or cancer even). However, I will encourage my daughters to get baselines done fairly early because DH's mom had aggressive breast cancer and one of his sisters has had suspicious lumps.

 

I know, I really should do it.

 

May I ask, did any of the women who have been diagnosed with BC here breastfeed for more than 3 years? I have heard that breastfeeding for more than 3 years basically nullifies your BC risk but I have never seen IRL proof of this, so I am interested to know.

[butterflymommy]

Thanks ladies for all your replies.

 

I have 7 children and have been pregnant more times than that. I nursed all the children and am nursing now, have never been overweight, and starting about 5 years ago started eating 90% very healthy vegan. I eat on average 8 servings of greens a day and 4 servings of fruit, no red meat, etc. But I don't want to have any false sense of security either... :confused: I'm also very interested in the statistics about breastfeeding being protective. It's something I hear a lot but haven't seen hard numbers on.

[Happy]

I am 40 and have never had one. Once, my midwife told me that the majority of cancers she had seen (she worked in an ob/gyn office) were detected by the woman's partner or the woman herself during a regular exam. I am no anti-mammogram, I just haven't gotten one. None of the females on either side of my family have had any kind of breast or ovarian cancer (or cancer even). However, I will encourage my daughters to get baselines done fairly early because DH's mom had aggressive breast cancer and one of his sisters has had suspicious lumps.

 

I know, I really should do it.

 

May I ask, did any of the women who have been diagnosed with BC here breastfeed for more than 3 years? I have heard that breastfeeding for more than 3 years basically nullifies your BC risk but I have never seen IRL proof of this, so I am interested to know.

 

We certainly didn't find my cancer by feel.

 

As far as nursing. No, I've never been pregnant. My babies came to me via adoption.

[HiddenJewel]

I use thermograms instead. We have been able to find things early so it could be treated preventatively instead of reactively after things are bad.

[DianeW88]

I am 40 and have never had one. Once, my midwife told me that the majority of cancers she had seen (she worked in an ob/gyn office) were detected by the woman's partner or the woman herself during a regular exam. I am no anti-mammogram, I just haven't gotten one. None of the females on either side of my family have had any kind of breast or ovarian cancer (or cancer even). However, I will encourage my daughters to get baselines done fairly early because DH's mom had aggressive breast cancer and one of his sisters has had suspicious lumps.

 

I know, I really should do it.

 

May I ask, did any of the women who have been diagnosed with BC here breastfeed for more than 3 years? I have heard that breastfeeding for more than 3 years basically nullifies your BC risk but I have never seen IRL proof of this, so I am interested to know.

 

My friend had three children and breastfed for five years...or close to it. Didn't seem to matter.

[J-rap]

My mother is a young breast cancer survivor. Her mother had breast cancer too (and survived). Her grandmother had breast cancer (did not survive). My breasts are extremely lumpy, so new lumps do not stand out. I eat healthy, exercise, and am thin. I have yearly mammograms, as well as yearly MRI's. This gives me a peace of mind.

[momtoamiracle]

I get mine every year since age 40. I have no family history at all, but most people that get it don't. I have a friend that was diagnosed at age 39 with it and by age 41 she was dead. Another friend had never had a mammogram and was diagnosed last year at age 46. They would have found it much sooner if she had been getting scans. She went through months of chemo and radiation.

 

 

 

I believe the kind I get is digital.

 

I honestly believe in our age of chemicals and pollution, no one is really risk free.

[NASDAQ]

Butterflymommy,

 

you have two close relatives who had breast cancer. I would wager that that makes you of higher risk than a slob on the couch who's never been pregnant or breastfed but has no cancer-affected relatives. The effect of pregnancy, nursing, and diet on breast cancer rates is slight. Having close relatives who had breast cancer, OTOH, is significant -- cancer.org says twice as likely for one close relative, and three times as likely for two.

 

Some people have argued that mammograms are not necessary at age forty for _low risk_ women. You are not low risk.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/07/us-health-mammogram-idUSTRE7660M820110707