New Mammogram Study

[Jogeephus]

It sounds like a new study is questioning the effectiveness of mammograms. The study also shows how mammograms can even hurt the woman in cases where the woman is over-treated. I'm sure there will be a lot of debate over this new study from the two different camps but it makes you wonder. Sadly, all of this news comes to my family same day we learn someone we know - a nurse, who has had yearly mammograms - has just been diagnosed with stage 3 breast cancer in spite of her due diligence.

 

[inyati13]

Jo, I had not heard that. As you know, my son does cancer research so I have an interest in that field of research. BTW, he has his research up for publication, he does no know yet which journal will accept it for publication. Sorry to hear about your friend having cancer. My mother is 91 and suffered through a radical mastectomy in her mid 50s. It also spread into her lymph nodes and those on the right side of her thoriac had to be removed. She had a treatment of chemotheraphy to treat any remaining cells. That was 40 years ago and at 91, she has been a poster child for surviving a terrible disease. I try very hard not to hate anything but I HATE cancer! I was beginning to hate the cold, but I didn't. :D

 

[HDRider]

A little over a year ago my wife went in for a mammogram. Checked out OK. She asked the Doc, "How about this? Feel right here."

She is almost all done with everything related to breast cancer. We hope and believe its all cleaned out.

We have been told that mammograms miss one in three breast cancers. Missed hers..

 

[Jogeephus]

That is what the study seemed to imply that the mammograms would sometimes miss the real small fast growing cancerous ones and/or pick up lesions that were not truly cancerous and lead to unnecessary treatment which was more harmful to the body than leaving it alone. Our friends cancer just happened to be picked up by an astute eye of the radiologist and is no thicker than a fishing line but has spread a lot. The proponents of the study say less should be spent on mammograms and more on research but the other camp is saying they are still necessary. I believe the study showed treatment was not needed in 29% in the cases and there is no difference in the death rate of those having regular mammograms needing treatment and those that did. Breast cancer took one of my sisters so this interests me.

 

[highgrit]

I don't believe anything about cancer, the good or bad. I feel like they have and know the cure. But this country can't survive without cancer. Even the woman that runs the American Cancer Society doesn't want a cure for cancer. Money is what rules this country and all the big dogs have their money and ours invested in cancer. To me I can't see how treatment works for one but not the other. No one wants to loose money, and if a cure for cancer was made available to the citizens of this country the rich wouldn't be wealthy anymore.

 

[CottageFarm]

I think there's been an over-reliance on mammogram's for a long time. There's a lot less emphasis put on self exams than there was 30 years ago because so many believe a mammogram will catch everything. It's an amazing diagnostic tool, but it's also only as good as the person reading it. Since they've become so common, and the vast majority of the time there's nothing there, I think there's a bit of complacency in reading results, and small masses are more easily missed.
As far as I know they are still recommending mammograms annually for all women over 40, and if you're in certain risk categories, every year after 25 or 30. That's a lot of pictures to look at for the radiologists/techs and it's easy to miss something very small on a 2D black/white picture.

 

[greybeard]

I never trust these studies. One will say one thing, then 6 months later another will come out saying the 1st study got it all wrong. I'm still unsure if red wine will decrease my chance of a heart attack, or whether coffee will ward off Alzheimers or increase the chance of me having a stroke.

And not to diminish the seriousness of breast cancer, but it has been reported that the primary reason women don't do the self exam is because they just don't have time in today's busy world. I think I can find the time to perform this thankless task for them. It would be a sacrifice of my time, but..somebody gotta do it. :hide:

 

[Green Creek]

I don't believe anything about cancer, the good or bad. I feel like they have and know the cure. But this country can't survive without cancer. Even the woman that runs the American Cancer Society doesn't want a cure for cancer. Money is what rules this country and all the big dogs have their money and ours invested in cancer. To me I can't see how treatment works for one but not the other. No one wants to loose money, and if a cure for cancer was made available to the citizens of this country the rich wouldn't be wealthy anymore.[

I'm left speechless by this well researched, thoughtful diatribe.

 

[inyati13]

That is what the study seemed to imply that the mammograms would sometimes miss the real small fast growing cancerous ones and/or pick up lesions that were not truly cancerous and lead to unnecessary treatment which was more harmful to the body than leaving it alone. Our friends cancer just happened to be picked up by an astute eye of the radiologist and is no thicker than a fishing line but has spread a lot. The proponents of the study say less should be spent on mammograms and more on research but the other camp is saying they are still necessary. I believe the study showed treatment was not needed in 29% in the cases and there is no difference in the death rate of those having regular mammograms needing treatment and those that did. Breast cancer took one of my sisters so this interests me.

Jo, amazing detail that caught my eye. I admire these folks who take their work serious. I know your son will be one. :D

 

[Caustic Burno]

Lost the MIL to breast cancer in 1977 it was a horrible way to go.
The treatment methods then you were better off just going home to die and very few survived.
I still believe mammograms save life's, it might miss one in and three but that is a heII of a lot better
than where we were in the 70's.
I also remember losing many a member of my family to heart attacks in the 60's and 70's.
In the 60's you just died the 70's you had a little chance. Procedures that had them looking like they had been
field dressed is now almost out patient.
Man must die and we have been plagued with disease from the beginning of time but we are a heck of a lot better off today.
We will never be disease free we can not out run our DNA.

 

[highgrit]

The CEO of the American Cancer Society makes 1.7 million a year plus expenses and bonuses. The pharmaceutical companies, Doctors and Lawyers, insurance companies and all the investment firms, depend on cancer to survive. I just wish they would put the cure out there for the folks that really have cancer. I am not so naive to think that with all the time and money spent on cancer research that they don't have a cure. Look at AIDS and stem cell research, and test tube babies, they can almost build a person. Cancer sucks, and I hate it. "Money is the root of all evil"

 

[I luv herfrds]

It missed my friends breast cancer too. They kept telling her it was nothing and did not need a biopsy. It spread to her thymnodes and she now has to wear a pressurized sleeve.
When I found my lump my doctor, at that time, could not even find it. The mammogram tech could feel it. Ultrasound tech could not find.
Went to a different doctor. He found it plus one I had not felt yet. Luckily both were non cancerous. But he did warn me to watch them and if I find any little change to call him immediately.

This doctor is also doing a study on why some breast cancers are missed and asked my friend if he could review her chart. From what he read he was mad that they did not do a closer follow up with my friend. I saw this doctor 3 times within 6 weeks. He did not mess around thankfully.

greybeard you are too funny!

 

[Judge Sharpe]

I was in medical research before I went to law school and became a broke shyster and part time cattle baron. I don't see that mammograms cause that many problems vs. the cancers they find. It is a small price for peace of mind. It is like PSA and DRE for men. PSA caught my prostate cancer a couple of years ago, had surgery and radiation and its all gone. Now there is a lot of talk about watchful waiting and not treating prostate cancer aggressively. I say to heck with that (although I would use stronger language). Follow YOUR doctor's recommendations. If you don't trust him them find someone you do trust. Life is too short and is full enough without worrying about something that can be found and treated. A cancer diagnosis will consume your entire mind until you get a handle on it. The best prevention of cancer deaths is to find t and get rid of it.
Bill Brower

 

[Caustic Burno]

I don't believe they can't cure cancer because of the medical profession.
The pharma company that comes up with a cure of a strain would make billions.
This is not polio as there are many different strains. If the research wasn't doing any good the survival rate
would have gotten better.
IMO a lot the problem is with us man was not made to eat preservatives and sit on our ass as much as we do.
Let just look at sugar this one here hits close to the farming community.
" The average person consumes 150 pounds of sugar per year–compared to just 7 ½ pounds consumed on average in the year 1700. That's 20 times as much! When typical slightly overweight people eat sugar, they on average store 5 percent as ready energy to use later, metabolize 60 percent and store a whopping 35 percent as fat that can be converted to energy later.

Interestingly, 50 percent of the sugar we consume today comes from high-fructose corn syrup in fat-free foods like salad dressings and regular soft drinks. "

Now was cancer then you bet, did people live as long no due to various reason's

They haven't even come close to touching Alzheimer's and it is becoming more rampant than ever.
You didn't even hear about it fifty years ago why is society ate up with it today.
If you think cancer is bad you haven't dealt with Alzheimer's and I have dealt with both.
Cancer kills the carrier Alzheimer's kills the family trying to care for a shell that looks like someone you loved.
At least with cancer other than brain you have a choice and can make a medical decision about your life.

If the Dr. ever diagnoses me with Alzheimer's I will write a note to myself to put a 45 ACP through my brain before
I subject my family to years of heII.

 

[Howdyjabo]

Alzheimer is rampant in my family. they all had heart surgery that saved their lives then came down with Alzheimer within two years.
I told my doctor we are NOT going to fix my heart if anything goes wrong with it.

I do have mammograms. Breast cancer does not run in my family. So if I get it I see no downside to treating it. I can only ever regret NOT getting a mammogram so its a no-brainer to get them, even if its not perfect.