Mammography - is it worth it?

[kroe1]

I do not get mammograms because I am much older now, and all but one thing on my bucket list is complete. As a matter of fact, I do not do much in the way of any prevention for any diseases, other than stay a healthy weight and exercise. If I was younger, I would follow guidelines. But now, the thought of living so I can get in a nursing home, is just not my thing.

[creekland]

 But now, the thought of living so I can get in a nursing home, is just not my thing.

 

Ditto.  After seeing my grandmother's experience, there's no way I plan to live that long.  When the body decides it's done, I'm done.

 

But until then I'm on the fence with how much I want to do (in addition to trying to live a healthy lifestyle).  Growing old itself isn't scary as long as there's an actual "life" that goes with it.  Some things are fixable and all works out well afterward.  Others aren't.  I guess I'm in agreement with those who say everyone has to do their own research and consider their options.

[sparrow]

It's worth it to me. I just watched one of my best friends battle triple negative breast cancer (found in a mammo), that had spread to 3 nodes, for the past 6 months. She's in her early 40s with 4 kids. Her absolute terror at the very real possibility of losing her life is something I'd like to avoid, at all costs. She had no family history of bc and I have no family medical history as an adoptee.  I've been getting them yearly since about 40. I've had one callback, and further diagnostics, that checked out OK, but I also have a baseline on my dense breast tissue.

 

My dear friend had a pathologic complete response to chemo. She had surgery and radiation, and while triple negative bc is a b*tch, things look good right now.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I don't plan on getting routine mammograms till I turn 50. This article gave me a lot of confidence that this is the right choice for me,

 

I like this.  Gives me 9 more years.  YAY...LOL

[SparklyUnicorn]

 But now, the thought of living so I can get in a nursing home, is just not my thing.

 

Yep

 

The thought of going to a nursing home is about as bad as the thought of going to prison.  It's about the same.

[Guest]

Yep

 

The thought of going to a nursing home is about as bad as the thought of going to prison. It's about the same.

That's not always true. My Great Grandmother spent years being shuffled from one family to another. She hated it. At the nursing home, she got to play bingo and cards, talk with women her age, etc. She was thrilled to be in the nursing home.

[catz]

That's not always true. My Great Grandmother spent years being shuffled from one family to another. She hated it. At the nursing home, she got to play bingo and cards, talk with women her age, etc. She was thrilled to be in the nursing home.

 

I have to say, I always think I never want to go to the nursing home.  My dad died this year as an active and vibrant 71 year old and I kind of think he did it his own way.  He would not want to be in a nursing home. 

 

BUT ... today my daughter played violin in a nursing home with a group of music students.  It was super nice!  I was looking at the activity board and they have so many events and so much enrichment.  The residents were mostly super sweet and delighted to have kids to play music for them.  They're having an Oktoberfest event next week with BEER and brats.  They take bus tours.  Etc etc etc.  The staff seemed wonderful.  Hmmm ...

[Laurie4b]

 

 

There's a lot of breast cancer in my family but as far as I know, no one has had the BRCA test done yet.

 

If a malignant lump is found, is there any way to tell how aggressive it is before treatment is started?  Sounds like the issue in the article is that cancers that wouldn't be aggressive were treated aggressively causing other health problems.  Can that determination be made before starting treatment?  If not, how did they figure out that the tumors that were treated would not have been aggressive?  If so, it sounds like the patient should have the option for how to treat based on how aggressive it is (or thought to be, is it a sure thing?)

 

Might need to do some more research.

 

Genetics: the only gene that they know of involved in breast cancer is the BRCA gene. That doesn't mean it's the only gene involved, just that they haven't identified others. When I had bc, I did have the test done b/c I was the 3rd generation in our family to have it. (Paternal GM, paternal aunt, me).  Though I was negative for BRCA, the genetic counselor said in all likelihood it did have a genetic component because three generations is possible but not probable by random chance. What is different about the BRAC gene is that it is highly predictive and also predicts ovarian cancer. The testing is not always paid for by insurance but on the other hand, i don't recall that it was outrageously expensive, either. 

 

Absolutely they do more tests to determine the degree of aggressiveness.You also have to keep in mind that aggressiveness does not necessarily equate with response to treatment. Some more aggressive cancers are highly responsive to treatment.  

 

When a tumor is biopsied, if it is malignant, the patient will find out whether it has receptors for estrogen, progesterone, or Her2.  Absence of any of those is triple negative. That is harder to treat because there are fewer drugs. Her2 is aggressive and used to be really bad news, but since the identification of Herceptin, which is not chemo, but specifically targets the tumor, it's very treatable now. If it is estrogen or progesterone positive, hormonal treatments will also be used.  

 

Overtreatment is partly within the patient's  control. If you are an adult, no one is going to force treatment on you that you turn down.  You have a right to choose what treatment you are given and to choose your provider.  You can get a second opinion, do research, etc. Many patients opt for the most invasive treatments because they "just want to get rid of it," so they choose a full mastectomy when a lumpectomy would have good results, etc. So not all overtreatment comes from doctors. But absent the patient's express wishes to the contrary, most physicians will follow the current best practice guidelines, and those might eventually be found to involve overtreatment. (News about DCIS is now coming out that suggests that it might be better not to treat it.)

 

 I found the doctors very willing to let the patient have major input into decisions because they know the field is evolving all the time. I think as long as you know what risks you are taking, and your provider has given you the most current research,  it's up to the patient to determine the risk of not stopping the cancer/risk of overtreatment ratio and what she prefers. 

[Laurie4b]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/10/faulty-research-behind-mammograms-breast-cancer

 

"Mammograms do help a small number of women avoid dying from breast cancer each year, and those lives count, but a 2012 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine calculated that over the last 30 years, mammograms have overdiagnosed 1.3 million women in the United States. Millions more women have experienced the anxiety and emotional turmoil of a second battery of tests to investigate what turned out to be a false alarm. Most of the 1.3 million women who were overdiagnosed received some kind of treatment—surgical procedures ranging from lumpectomies to double mastectomies, often with radiation and chemotherapy or hormonal therapy, too—for cancers never destined to bother them. And these treatments pose their own dangers. Though the risk is slight, especially if your life is on the line, a 2013 study found that receiving radiation treatments for breast cancer increases your risk of heart disease, and others have shown it boosts lung cancer risks too. Chemotherapy may damage the heart, and tamoxifen, while a potent treatment for those who need it, doubles the risk of endometrial cancer. In a 2013 paper published in the medical journal BMJ, breast surgeon Michael Baum estimated that for every breast cancer death thwarted by mammography, we can expect an additional one to three deaths from causes, like lung cancer and heart attacks, linked to treatments that women endured."

 

Wondering if people have thoughts on the matter, or perhaps other articles to read on this.

The link on the effect of radiology on heart disease looked at women who "underwent radiotherapy for breast cancer between  underwent radiotherapy for breast cancer between 1958 and 2001 in Sweden and Denmark in Sweden and Denmark" . 

 

The field of radiation has made major advances in recent years, let alone in the last 50 years. It used to be much more of a concern but advances in technology have minimized the risks. Currently, when the cancer is on the left side, there is more risk to the heart, but now they have highly specific ways to direct the radiation so that it misses the heart entirely except for a tiny area. No one should have radiation when it isn't needed, and women should definitely decide what they think about the risks/benefits, but I just don't think the data from this long ago is all that applicable to radiation today. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

That's not always true. My Great Grandmother spent years being shuffled from one family to another. She hated it. At the nursing home, she got to play bingo and cards, talk with women her age, etc. She was thrilled to be in the nursing home.

 

Yeah I'm sure experiences vary.  I worked in a nursing home.  Some did ok there and didn't mind it.  Some just waited to die.  She was still able to play bingo and cards.  There were some who were with it enough, but were not able to do that for various reasons. 

[creekland]

Yeah I'm sure experiences vary.  I worked in a nursing home.  Some did ok there and didn't mind it.  Some just waited to die.  She was still able to play bingo and cards.  There were some who were with it enough, but were not able to do that for various reasons. 

 

Very, very few were able to do that where my grandmother was and the food left a lot to be desired.  There were a couple of decent caretakers, but most... The local doctor refused to treat her bladder infections causing even more issues with hallucinations and more.

 

My family always had someone staying with my grandma (taking turns), so they advocated for her and provided company + entertainment.  I feel for those who were there day in and day out without visitors.  Most were waiting to die - whether they knew that or not.

 

As for me... my cut off is probably long before that stage.  I can't imagine not being able to go outside or travel independently or make my own decisions about food, etc.  I'm not someone who cares to have others taking care of her at all.

 

Retirement homes or communities are far different than many nursing homes.  When age progresses, some of those are attractive for all they provide.

[Zebra]

Excellent article, thank you for posting it.

[Scarlett]

Genetics: the only gene that they know of involved in breast cancer is the BRCA gene. That doesn't mean it's the only gene involved, just that they haven't identified others. When I had bc, I did have the test done b/c I was the 3rd generation in our family to have it. (Paternal GM, paternal aunt, me). Though I was negative for BRCA, the genetic counselor said in all likelihood it did have a genetic component because three generations is possible but not probable by random chance. What is different about the BRAC gene is that it is highly predictive and also predicts ovarian cancer. The testing is not always paid for by insurance but on the other hand, i don't recall that it was outrageously expensive, either.

 

Absolutely they do more tests to determine the degree of aggressiveness.You also have to keep in mind that aggressiveness does not necessarily equate with response to treatment. Some more aggressive cancers are highly responsive to treatment.

 

When a tumor is biopsied, if it is malignant, the patient will find out whether it has receptors for estrogen, progesterone, or Her2. Absence of any of those is triple negative. That is harder to treat because there are fewer drugs. Her2 is aggressive and used to be really bad news, but since the identification of Herceptin, which is not chemo, but specifically targets the tumor, it's very treatable now. If it is estrogen or progesterone positive, hormonal treatments will also be used.

 

Overtreatment is partly within the patient's control. If you are an adult, no one is going to force treatment on you that you turn down. You have a right to choose what treatment you are given and to choose your provider. You can get a second opinion, do research, etc. Many patients opt for the most invasive treatments because they "just want to get rid of it," so they choose a full mastectomy when a lumpectomy would have good results, etc. So not all overtreatment comes from doctors. But absent the patient's express wishes to the contrary, most physicians will follow the current best practice guidelines, and those might eventually be found to involve overtreatment. (News about DCIS is now coming out that suggests that it might be better not to treat it.)

 

I found the doctors very willing to let the patient have major input into decisions because they know the field is evolving all the time. I think as long as you know what risks you are taking, and your provider has given you the most current research, it's up to the patient to determine the risk of not stopping the cancer/risk of overtreatment ratio and what she prefers.

Turning down treatment isn't always so easy. My sister had a 1.1 cm lump, nothing in her lymph nodes, negative brca. Treatment recommendation was lumpectomy, radiation, chemo, tamoxifen. My sister opted for all of that except chemo and they really pressured her on it. AFTER she turned down chemo they told her about another test that measures likelihood of cancer returning....on a scale of 1-50....1 being lowest chance. Her number was 2. 2! If she has gone along with chemo she would have never known that. Makes me furious. That test should be routine for everyone.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Very, very few were able to do that where my grandmother was and the food left a lot to be desired.  There were a couple of decent caretakers, but most... The local doctor refused to treat her bladder infections causing even more issues with hallucinations and more.

 

My family always had someone staying with my grandma (taking turns), so they advocated for her and provided company + entertainment.  I feel for those who were there day in and day out without visitors.  Most were waiting to die - whether they knew that or not.

 

As for me... my cut off is probably long before that stage.  I can't imagine not being able to go outside or travel independently or make my own decisions about food, etc.  I'm not someone who cares to have others taking care of her at all.

 

Retirement homes or communities are far different than many nursing homes.  When age progresses, some of those are attractive for all they provide.

 

Advocacy makes the biggest difference.  Part of my job was advocating, especially for those who had nobody.  It was frustrating as heck. 

[Halftime Hope]

I get yearly mammograms, at least most of the time.  I skipped when I was pregnant and nursing and I skipped when we didn't have insurance.  Other than that, every year since I was 32.  That's when a doctor doing a regular check-up after a car accident found a lump, a mammo was inconclusive, had an ultrasound that was still inconclusive, and then had a lumpectomy. 

 

There's a lot of breast cancer in my family but as far as I know, no one has had the BRCA test done yet.

 

If a malignant lump is found, is there any way to tell how aggressive it is before treatment is started?  Sounds like the issue in the article is that cancers that wouldn't be aggressive were treated aggressively causing other health problems.  Can that determination be made before starting treatment?  If not, how did they figure out that the tumors that were treated would not have been aggressive?  If so, it sounds like the patient should have the option for how to treat based on how aggressive it is (or thought to be, is it a sure thing?)

 

Might need to do some more research.

 

Yes, tumor tissue is routinely tested to determine its oncotype.  That tells you what kind of cancer it is, how treatable it is, and where it is on the low risk to high risk spectrum.  They will also usually do a sentinel node biopsy -- both of these tell how far it has spread, and help determine the treatments. 

 

My surgeons would not do the sentinel node biopsy before the surgery.  That kind of stunk.

[momofkhm]

Another person with 2 friends whose cancer was found before age 45.  Both are now multiple year survivors.  The more recent of the two, even knowing EXACTLY where the lump was couldn't find it.

 

Another 2 friends are going through treatment right now.  One doing conventional radiation and chemo.  The other is doing the natural route - diet, enemas, supplements.  Neither of these 2 are 50 yet.

 

So yes, I get mammograms.  I started at 40, but missed last year.  I need to make an appointment now.

 

 

[Liz CA]

I have managed to put mine off for three years because I fainted at my first mamo and I now have so much additional anxiety surrounding the procedure, I have not marched myself to the office to have it done. I have last year's referral still hanging on my corkboard. Meanwhile, during those three years, I assisted my mother through her own breast cancer. That should be enough to force me to go, but it just hasn't so far. I may need a driving buddy and a Valium...

 

Or try thermography? Nobody touches you during this procedure. I need to get a baseline for thermography but keep forgetting it or putting it off because there are so many other things to do...perhaps early next year.

[Liz CA]

Turning down treatment isn't always so easy. My sister had a 1.1 cm lump, nothing in her lymph nodes, negative brca. Treatment recommendation was lumpectomy, radiation, chemo, tamoxifen. My sister opted for all of that except chemo and they really pressured her on it. AFTER she turned down chemo they told her about another test that measures likelihood of cancer returning....on a scale of 1-50....1 being lowest chance. Her number was 2. 2! If she has gone along with chemo she would have never known that. Makes me furious. That test should be routine for everyone.

 

Yes, there can be considerable pressure. I experienced something similar with a borderline - 1 classification and turned down chemo. I was so well read and informed by the time I had the appointment that I was able to ask questions about statistics for which the oncologist had no answers so he gave up trying to convince me. But I could see how someone, more trusting of medical professionals or seeking to be completely guided without doing their own research, could be easily talked into it.

[Guest]

Or try thermography? Nobody touches you during this procedure. I need to get a baseline for thermography but keep forgetting it or putting it off because there are so many other things to do...perhaps early next year.

How does one get something like this, though? Do you tell your gyn you refuse mammography? And I wonder what that does regarding insurance coverage.

[Scarlett]

Yes, there can be considerable pressure. I experienced something similar with a borderline - 1 classification and turned down chemo. I was so well read and informed by the time I had the appointment that I was able to ask questions about statistics for which the oncologist had no answers so he gave up trying to convince me. But I could see how someone, more trusting of medical professionals or seeking to be completely guided without doing their own research, could be easily talked into it.

A lot of people fall into that group. I suspect that this board is more likely than the general public to question the doctors and do their own research. My own mother who I think is very intelligent and normally skeptical, didn't even get a second opinion.

 

And when you or a loved one gets a diagnosis it is so terrifying it is difficult to breathe much less research. It is helpful to stay on top of the research, but there are so many possibilities it is Impossible to plan for all of them. The best we can do is be determined to take steps to stop, find an advocate who can think clearly and help us make the best decisions for ourselves.

[J-rap]

I've had one almost every year since around 40, since my mother, my grandmother, and my great-grandmother all had breast cancer.  I also have an MRI every other year, which is supposed to pick up what the mammography doesn't pick up.  Because I've done it for so long, they compare every year to past years.  So if something turns up suspicious, they first look at past mammographies.  Usually they  see that I had that spot since my very first mammography, and they know it's fine.  So, I still continue to get a yearly mammography.  I don't mind them at all.

 

But, I do think what we know about breast cancer is definitely evolving.  I think they are finding that some types of breast cancer are actually non-invasive and are very unlikely to spread.  But of course others spread rapidly.  So, they are working on tests that will accurately determine which type it is. 

[sparrow]

I've had one almost every year since around 40, since my mother, my grandmother, and my great-grandmother all had breast cancer.  I also have an MRI every other year, which is supposed to pick up what the mammography doesn't pick up.  Because I've done it for so long, they compare every year to past years.  So if something turns up suspicious, they first look at past mammographies.  Usually they  see that I had that spot since my very first mammography, and they know it's fine.  So, I still continue to get a yearly mammography.  I don't mind them at all.

 

But, I do think what we know about breast cancer is definitely evolving.  I think they are finding that some types of breast cancer are actually non-invasive and are very unlikely to spread.  But of course others spread rapidly.  So, they are working on tests that will accurately determine which type it is. 

 

:iagree: I think things may change in the future, with the evolution of breast cancer diagnosis and treatment, but for now, mammograms are giving me some piece of mind.  When I lamented to my doctor about a callback on what ended up being a benign fibroadenoma, she reminded me that the mammogram did its job. Despite my dense breast tissue, the mammo was able to see a lump that wasn't right and that should be investigated. I had a mammotome biopsy to confirm it was non-cancerous and now that is in my records. 

[Greta]

I got my baseline done last year at 40. I've been avoiding my doctors this year, because I know they're going to pressure me to get another one. But based on everything I've read, I don't want to. I'll do it again at 50. But I'm at low risk (I took the risk assessment that was linked in the article, and it confirmed that) so I just don't think it's worth the potential costs for me. I would make a different decision if I had the BCRA gene, or a family history without that gene, or another specific reason to believe I was at risk. But since I don't, I see no reason to expose myself to extra radiation (I don't get dental X-rays as often as my dentist would like me to either).

[TranquilMind]

Yep

 

The thought of going to a nursing home is about as bad as the thought of going to prison.  It's about the same.

Agreed.   I'd go off alone into the wilderness before I would do this. 

 

But hopefully, it won't be necessary. 

[TranquilMind]

How does one get something like this, though? Do you tell your gyn you refuse mammography? And I wonder what that does regarding insurance coverage.

You find a clinic that does it and order the test.  I'm not sure how insurance plays into it, but if you are the lucky beneficiary of crap insurance (like yours truly) where you pay high premiums plus everything out of pocket through your "health savings account" until you reach some catastrophic disaster level, you just pay for it with your account, assuming you have enough money in it. 

 

I googled it and found one within 30 minutes from me, though there are more in other states. 

 

There are labs all over where you can get tests done because you deem it wise. 

[Guest]

You find a clinic that does it and order the test. I'm not sure how insurance plays into it, but if you are the lucky beneficiary of crap insurance (like yours truly) where you pay high premiums plus everything out of pocket through your "health savings account" until you reach some catastrophic disaster level, you just pay for it with your account, assuming you have enough money in it.

 

I googled it and found one within 30 minutes from me, though there are more in other states.

 

There are labs all over where you can get tests done because you deem it wise.

Yes, your insurance sounds quite familiar to mine.

[Doodle]

http://www.pennstatehershey.org/web/cancer/patientcare/patientresources/breast-cancer-awareness

[J-rap]

Yep

 

The thought of going to a nursing home is about as bad as the thought of going to prison.  It's about the same.

 

True.  At least with prison, you have a chance to get out and start a new life. 

[kiwik]

Would a positive or negative BRCA change the frequency of mammos for anyone here?

I have BRCA1. The NZ health system has paid for a yearly MRI for my breasts and ultrasound for my ovaries and blood tests since I found out. Now I am 46 I also get annual mammograms between the MRIs. The have stopped the ultrasounds because they don't pick anything up until too late but I had my ovaries removed earlier this year anyway. I will probably have my breasts removed as soon as I lose some more weight.

 

eta. I must check whether the mammograms are annual or every 2 or 3 years. I keep turning down Tamoxofin {sp?} though I can't face taking something that nasty when I am not actually sick.

[LMD]

My little sister was diagnosed with aggressive breast cancer last month at age 29. She's waiting on the brca results. She started chemo last week.

I've never had a mammogram, I'm 31. I'll probably have them semi regularly when I finally get the nerve to see my Dr.

[Laurie4b]

I have managed to put mine off for three years because I fainted at my first mamo and I now have so much additional anxiety surrounding the procedure, I have not marched myself to the office to have it done. I have last year's referral still hanging on my corkboard. Meanwhile, during those three years, I assisted my mother through her own breast cancer. That should be enough to force me to go, but it just hasn't so far. I may need a driving buddy and a Valium...

 

 

 

It would for me. My mother was negative for BRCA, but if she had been positive, it would have seemed more pressing.....How does one get something like this, though? Do you tell your gyn you refuse mammography? And I wonder what that does regarding insurance coverage. 

 

 

Was it pain that caused you to faint or anxiety? My mammograms have never been painful but I have read that other women do experience pain. 

 

 

As I posted upthread, BRAC is the only gene they have identified, so not having BRAC doesn't mean that there is not a genetic component. I thought because the breast cancer in our family was on my father's side and fairly removed from me (grandmother, aunt) that it was not genetic. I was told by the genetic counselor that the probability is that it was genetic; they know that there are other genes involved, but they haven't specifically identified those yet. BRAC is the only one they can test for IOW.

 

You probably cannot get coverage for thermography because there is not medical data supporting its effectiveness in screening.

 

However, a medical alternative to a mammogram is an MRI. It's more expensive, so it's generally used to check subsequently to a mammogram, but depending on where you get it done, you may be able to afford it out of pocket. (Generally, smaller private providers are less expensive than large hospitals.) 

 

I would strongly encourage you to talk to your gyn about helping you solve the problem rather than trying to solve the problem and then talking with your gyn about scheduling a mammo or telling him/her that you refuse one. Depending on what your specific issue is, yes, Valium and a friend could be helpful and a physician would probably very willingly prescribe an antianxiety med. If you go the mammo route, given your anxiety, I would go to a large hospital or other facility where a radiologist reads the images while the patient is still there so that you don't have to face the possibility of a "call back." It can all get done in one day. Or an MRI might be appropriate and the gyn might advocate for it with the insurance company. (There is no pain with an MRI, but I don't know if pain was the issue.) The fact that you have a first degree relative with the disease and that you actually fainted during your first mammo is evidence that you need screening, but perhaps the insurance company would agree to the more expensive test given your history.  You could also work with a cognitive behavioral therapist to help address your anxiety around the whole issue. Maybe it would be helpful to address any anxiety about talking with your gyn about the issue. 

[Guest]

Was it pain that caused you to faint or anxiety? My mammograms have never been painful but I have read that other women do experience

Sort of both. It wasn't "pain" the the way I normally think of pain, but the "squeezing" of the left bOOk was so excessive, it felt like I was losing blood flow to my head. Then it was anxiety, too, because they kept rolling that side again to attempt a better image. So, it wasn't just squish, photo, and move on. They kept pushing the tissue around and mashing it harder and harder.

 

I have pretty intense medical anxiety to begin with and that smooshing and manipulating was too much.

[Laurie4b]

Sort of both. It wasn't "pain" the the way I normally think of pain, but the "squeezing" of the left bOOk was so excessive, it felt like I was losing blood flow to my head. Then it was anxiety, too, because they kept rolling that side again to attempt a better image. So, it wasn't just squish, photo, and move on. They kept pushing the tissue around and mashing it harder and harder.

 

I have pretty intense medical anxiety to begin with and that smooshing and manipulating was too much.

 

I'm so sorry that you had that experience. I have intense anxiety in medical situations because of a history of sexual assault by a physician (and several friends who had similar experiences--some not as bad, some worse.) Most medical providers are very sympathetic and work with me so that I can get the care I need without triggering trauma. 

 

So if you trust your gyn, I would talk with him/her about your experience. If you don't feel like you'll get understanding, fire that one and find a new one you can trust.  I can imagine a few different scenarios that would get you what you need, so I am optimistic there is a solution out there for you. 

[FaithManor]

I am one that has been over diagnosed, three unnecessary biopsies on fibroids. History of fibroids in the women on my mom's side and not a single case of breast cancer. I now refuse mammograms. They are horrifically painful because of the fibroids, and I am done with invasive medical procedures that create pain for no gain.

[G5052]

Just personal experience, but as I've related here before, I found that the expertise of the mammographer made a huge difference for me.

 

When I get the "right" technician, my mammo is one visit with no call-backs and no biopsies. She has notes recorded of my "trouble areas" and makes sure that she gets those properly imaged every year. Sometimes she does an extra image to be sure, but she's fast and less painful than the others too. I never bruise with her.

 

This year I called her directly to schedule, and I call her that morning just to make sure she's on duty. I'm at risk, so that works for me.

 

One of those your mileage may vary situations of course...

[Miss Peregrine]

Sort of both. It wasn't "pain" the the way I normally think of pain, but the "squeezing" of the left bOOk was so excessive, it felt like I was losing blood flow to my head. Then it was anxiety, too, because they kept rolling that side again to attempt a better image. So, it wasn't just squish, photo, and move on. They kept pushing the tissue around and mashing it harder and harder.

 

I have pretty intense medical anxiety to begin with and that smooshing and manipulating was too much.

OMGosh. I am picturing you fainting to the floor while your breast was still stuck in there! That makes me want to faint. I hope it was free at least.

[Guest]

OMGosh. I am picturing you fainting to the floor while your breast was still stuck in there! That makes me want to faint. I hope it was free at least.

No; it was close to that, though. The technician was about to adjust for another squeeze and I was staring at the chair thinking, "I really need to be there." I muttered, "I don't feel good...wait a second," and I reckon she could see by my physiology that I was going to crash. So i just slumped into her arms with my t!ts hanging out. :D

[redsquirrel]

My maternal grandmother died of breast cancer, my mother has had breast cancer in both breasts, my aunt had breast cancer. My aunt also had ovarian cancer and my mother has had uterine cancer.  You best believe I am having a yearly mammogram and my paps.

 

Both of my mother's breast cancers were caught very early with a mammogram. She has had lumpectomy in both breasts and radiation treatment, but not chemo.  She was lucky in that both of the cancers were the slow moving ductal type that responds well to treatment and both were caught very early. But it was still scary for her after seeing her mother and sister die from breast cancer, and having had the uterine cancer earlier.

[Liz CA]

How does one get something like this, though? Do you tell your gyn you refuse mammography? And I wonder what that does regarding insurance coverage.

 

Could be tricky. I always use a health savings account for visits to naturopath. If you google thermography providers in your area you could call and see what the out of pocket amount is. You may even get a cash discount. I actually called once 2 years ago and it was around $300 if I recall correctly. But it may be worth it to you since you had bad mammo experiences.

 

As to finding an ob/gyn who is okay with it, I would just ask explaining just how uncomfortable you are with mammos. If he/she is unrelenting, I'd consider finding one who is knowledgeable about it.

 

Be forewarned: As with everything, there is controversy as to which is the better method.

[Liz CA]

No; it was close to that, though. The technician was about to adjust for another squeeze and I was staring at the chair thinking, "I really need to be there." I muttered, "I don't feel good...wait a second," and I reckon she could see by my physiology that I was going to crash. So i just slumped into her arms with my t!ts hanging out. :D

 

Oh girl, I'd definitely google thermography.  :grouphug:

[Cottonwood]

I have been using thermography as my annual 'scan' for 7 yrs.  My (military) insurance doesn't cover it.  It's only 125 for the breast area, 225 for two areas and around 375 for whole body.  I save a little before the yrly appointment and just go do it.

 

Because the instruments used detect heat (thus inflammation), the doctors that read the scans are able to pick up on tumors forming at the cell level as the blood vessels and such are making new paths to feed the new growth.  Long before other, more conventional types of scans can recognize an already-formed mass.  My technician told me that once I got my baseline images done, the doctors reading my thermo scans, in the future, be able to see any changes in tissue down to the pixel when zoomed way up.

 

Early on my images showed some concerning high levels of lymph blockage along the tops of the breast area, which can be dangerous if not cleared out so I was able to get lymph detox done and I changed all of my habits to keep that stuff flowing.  I would have never known why the tops of my breasts hurt so bad all the time w/o thermography.  Even ultrasound didn't show up anything there.  I've even had my head scanned b/c on my left side of my cheek I had weird pain for a long time.  It showed a visible spike of inflammation right where my dentist later diagnosed a tooth infection.  His x-rays previously didn't show it up, but once I showed him my thermo scans he did further testing, which did reveal a serious abscess.  

 

No one touches you for the scan, you just sit in a way they instruct you and turn at small increments so they can capture the image.  You have to sit in a cool room so that your temp will regulate then they point the thermo camera at you and take the shot of you. No squishing (which can be a problem if you squish a tumor), no pain....

 

AND...AND this is what got me...  I have read reports (don't ask me to drag them up, I don't know where I filed them) that the tissue that ends up being mammo'd accounts for only 40% of the area where cancers that are considered 'breast cancers' are found.  My Nana died of BC and she completely agreed with this data after being diagnosed.  She had mammos done every other year and never did it find her cancer which was off to the side of her typical breast area...sort of under her arm pit a little, yet still attached to what is technically considered breast tissue.  One year she INSISTED they do further tests b/c she felt a sizeable lump off to the side that no one else seemed to feel and the mammo didn't have access to find.  Turns out it was BC.  Thermography can be taken of the entire body if you want it to.

 

THermography can diagnose a ton of things super early and can be a super helpful tool.  If anyone would like me to post some of my scan pics I can.

 

 

[klmama]

Candmforever, thanks for sharing your experience.  Could you please share what you did to help resolve the lymph blockage? 

[Greta]

I have been using thermography as my annual 'scan' for 7 yrs. My (military) insurance doesn't cover it. It's only 125 for the breast area, 225 for two areas and around 375 for whole body. I save a little before the yrly appointment and just go do it.

 

Because the instruments used detect heat (thus inflammation), the doctors that read the scans are able to pick up on tumors forming at the cell level as the blood vessels and such are making new paths to feed the new growth. Long before other, more conventional types of scans can recognize an already-formed mass. My technician told me that once I got my baseline images done, the doctors reading my thermo scans, in the future, be able to see any changes in tissue down to the pixel when zoomed way up.

 

Early on my images showed some concerning high levels of lymph blockage along the tops of the breast area, which can be dangerous if not cleared out so I was able to get lymph detox done and I changed all of my habits to keep that stuff flowing. I would have never known why the tops of my breasts hurt so bad all the time w/o thermography. Even ultrasound didn't show up anything there. I've even had my head scanned b/c on my left side of my cheek I had weird pain for a long time. It showed a visible spike of inflammation right where my dentist later diagnosed a tooth infection. His x-rays previously didn't show it up, but once I showed him my thermo scans he did further testing, which did reveal a serious abscess.

 

No one touches you for the scan, you just sit in a way they instruct you and turn at small increments so they can capture the image. You have to sit in a cool room so that your temp will regulate then they point the thermo camera at you and take the shot of you. No squishing (which can be a problem if you squish a tumor), no pain....

 

AND...AND this is what got me... I have read reports (don't ask me to drag them up, I don't know where I filed them) that the tissue that ends up being mammo'd accounts for only 40% of the area where cancers that are considered 'breast cancers' are found. My Nana died of BC and she completely agreed with this data after being diagnosed. She had mammos done every other year and never did it find her cancer which was off to the side of her typical breast area...sort of under her arm pit a little, yet still attached to what is technically considered breast tissue. One year she INSISTED they do further tests b/c she felt a sizeable lump off to the side that no one else seemed to feel and the mammo didn't have access to find. Turns out it was BC. Thermography can be taken of the entire body if you want it to.

 

THermography can diagnose a ton of things super early and can be a super helpful tool. If anyone would like me to post some of my scan pics I can.

Thank you for sharing this. I asked my doctor about thermography before I got my mammogram, and she had never heard of it! Why isn't it more widely used?

 

My experience was nowhere near as bad as poor Quill's was, but it was more than just "uncomfortable" like I was told it would be (I think in medspeak, uncomfortable means painful, painful means excruciating, and "a little pinch" means you're going to need to resist the urge to scream) and I was sore for days afterward. I'd rather not repeat the experience if there's a viable alternative. Is thermography considered as reliable as mammography?

[Greta]

I'm so sorry that you had that experience. I have intense anxiety in medical situations because of a history of sexual assault by a physician (and several friends who had similar experiences--some not as bad, some worse.) Most medical providers are very sympathetic and work with me so that I can get the care I need without triggering trauma.

 

So if you trust your gyn, I would talk with him/her about your experience. If you don't feel like you'll get understanding, fire that one and find a new one you can trust. I can imagine a few different scenarios that would get you what you need, so I am optimistic there is a solution out there for you.

I'm so sorry that happened to you, Laurie. And I think you've given excellent advice here.

[Laurie4b]

Thank you for sharing this. I asked my doctor about thermography before I got my mammogram, and she had never heard of it! Why isn't it more widely used?

 

My experience was nowhere near as bad as poor Quill's was, but it was more than just "uncomfortable" like I was told it would be (I think in medspeak, uncomfortable means painful, painful means excruciating, and "a little pinch" means you're going to need to resist the urge to scream) and I was sore for days afterward. I'd rather not repeat the experience if there's a viable alternative. Is thermography considered as reliable as mammography?

No, thermography is not considered as reliable as mammography. Maybe one day it will be but for now, it's more in the "alternative" category of medicine. An MRI is an alternative, but much more expensive. 

[Greta]

No, thermography is not considered as reliable as mammography. Maybe one day it will be but for now, it's more in the "alternative" category of medicine. An MRI is an alternative, but much more expensive.

I see. Thank you, Laurie!

[Cottonwood]

No, thermography is not considered as reliable as mammography. Maybe one day it will be but for now, it's more in the "alternative" category of medicine. An MRI is an alternative, but much more expensive. 

 

This is incorrect IMO and largely depends on a person's knowledge (or training) of thermography. Both scans work very differently and are looking for very different things (heat and physiology v/s radiation and anatomy) and the data both provide are very useful.  My military doctors know nothing about thermography and have dismissed it right away in conversation.  I wouldn't expect them to see it as a very valuable tool because they haven't been trained to use it.  If you ask the M.D.s who read the thermo scans and return your reports, they would answer very differently.  My non military doctor also sees it as a viable replacement to mammos, despite the FDA saying otherwise.  The research and data on thermograms are really gaining ground.  I wish I wasn't involved in a move right now, because packed away I have several research reports I could quote from but alas...it's all packed right now...  

[Laurie4b]

No, thermography is not considered as reliable as mammography. Maybe one day it will be but for now, it's more in the "alternative" category of medicine. An MRI is an alternative, but much more expensive. 

 

 

This is incorrect IMO and largely depends on a person's knowledge (or training) of thermography. Both scans work very differently and are looking for very different things (heat and physiology v/s radiation and anatomy) and the data both provide are very useful.  My military doctors know nothing about thermography and have dismissed it right away in conversation.  I wouldn't expect them to see it as a very valuable tool because they haven't been trained to use it.  If you ask the M.D.s who read the thermo scans and return your reports, they would answer very differently.  My non military doctor also sees it as a viable replacement to mammos, despite the FDA saying otherwise.  The research and data on thermograms are really gaining ground.  I wish I wasn't involved in a move right now, because packed away I have several research reports I could quote from but alas...it's all packed right now...  

 

I don't think it's debatable that it is not considered as reliable as mammograms by mainstream medicine.That's what I was referring to by saying it is considered alternative medicine.  I also said that it may be in the future. 

 

For now: 

 

http://www.cancer.org/treatment/understandingyourdiagnosis/examsandtestdescriptions/mammogramsandotherbreastimagingprocedures/mammograms-and-other-breast-imaging-procedures-newer-br-imaging-tests  This is June 2015

 

http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm257259.htm  From the FDA

 

This is why insurance companies don't cover it, which was one of the questions asked that I responded to. Here's one example. http://www.aetna.com/cpb/medical/data/1_99/0029.html  March 2015

[Word Nerd]

The American Cancer Society released new screening guidelines today and now recommends that annual mammograms should be done at age 45 rather than 40. More here.

[ktgrok]

Sweet! I'll wait till 45. And yes, the gyn told me they moved pap smears to every 3-5 years, which I was also happy about :)