E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
The added radiation from mammograms and other types of tests with chest radiation might be especially harmful to them and an MRI is probably a safer method of screening women under 30 who are at high risk because of gene mutations, the authors conclude.
The study can't prove a link between the radiation and breast cancer, but is one of the biggest ever to look at the issue. The research was published Thursday in the journal BMJ.
"This will raise questions and caution flags about how we treat women with (gene) mutations," said Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society. He and the society had no role in the research.
Mammograms are most often used in women over 40, unless they are at high risk, like carrying a mutation of the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene. Having such a mutation increases the risk of developing cancer five-fold. About one in 400 women has the gene abnormalities, which are more common in Eastern European Jewish populations. Unlike mammograms, an MRI, or magnetic resonance imaging scan, does not involve radiation.
The breast cancer screening tests have been proven to save lives and are clearly beneficial for women aged 50 and over who have an average risk of breast cancer. Experts are divided about their value in women younger than 50.
Some studies have suggested women with the genetic mutations could be more sensitive to radiation because the genes are involved in fixing DNA problems. If those genes are damaged by radiation, they may not be able to repair DNA properly, raising the cancer risk.
In several European countries including Britain, the Netherlands and Spain, doctors already advise women with BRCA mutations to get MRIs instead of mammograms before age 30. In the U.S., there is no specific advice from a leading task force of government advisers, but the American Cancer Society recommends yearly mammograms and MRIs from age 30 for women with BRCA gene mutations.
In the BMJ study, European researchers followed nearly 2,000 women over 18 with one of the gene mutations in Britain, France and the Netherlands. Participants reported their previous chest X-rays and mammograms, including the age of their first screening and the number of procedures. About 850 women were later diagnosed with breast cancer. Roughly half of them had X-rays while one third had at least one mammogram, at an average age of 29.
The researchers did not have a breakdown of how many women were exposed to chest radiation before age 30 but estimated that for every 100 women aged 30 with a gene mutation, nine will develop breast cancer by age 40. They projected the number of cases would increase by five if all of them had one mammogram before age 30. But they cautioned their results should be interpreted with caution because most women didn't have a mammogram before 30.
Researchers found women with a history of chest radiation in their 20s had a 43 percent increased relative risk of breast cancer compared to women who had no chest radiation at that age. Any exposure before age 20 seemed to raise the risk by 62 percent. Radiation after age 30 did not seem to affect breast cancer risk.
"We believe countries who use mammograms in women under 30 should reconsider their guidelines," said Anouk Pijpe of the Netherlands Cancer Institute, one of the study authors. "It may be possible to reduce the risk of breast cancer in (high-risk) women by using MRIs, so we believe physicians and patients should consider that."
The study was paid for by European cancer groups.
Lichtenfeld said the study wouldn't immediately change advice from the American Cancer Society but said concerned women should talk to their doctor about their options. "It's not possible today to make a blanket statement about what women (with the gene mutations) should do, but physicians and patients need to weigh the risks and benefits carefully," he said.
He also warned that women who need scans involving radiation shouldn't avoid them because of breast cancer fears.
"No one should think that they should never get an X-ray because they have the BRCA1 or 2 gene mutations," he said. "Just be careful that the X-rays you get are really the ones that you need."
Leave a Comment:
What? You mean someone is FINALLY admitting that the Cancer industry is CREATING patients by touting mammograms as necessary to women's health? I'm shocked. How much money will Big Pharma lose in chemo sales if women stopped getting cancer from irradiating their breasts? I'll bet this article doesn't hang around on line very long. We wouldn't want women knowing the truth, now would we?
I totally agree with you, JCA-1829090. In European countries like Germany mammograms ARE ILLEGAL!! Think about the experience a woman goes thru. The breast is put between 2 plates and squished as flat as possible. There is pain and discomfort involved. When pain is involved, we can be pretty sure some cells are damaged. Then what? The damaged cells get a dose of radiation. How many times have we heard "Oh I just got my every 6 months mammogram and I've got cancer, I'm so glad I was going every 6 months!" REALLY??? Women don't see the connection at all, they leave the responsibility for their own health in their doctor's hands and don't even question. Thermmography is a much better choice because this test can detect changes in the breast tissue YEARS BEFORE a mammogram can! Google it - there's a great web-site that will give you tons of info and can help you find where you can get one. It's also PAINLESS, NO RADIATION TOO! Also, if you take care of yourself, there is a protocol of essential oils that can be used regularly that will keep the breasts lump free. A healthy diet that is more akaline based will go far in preventing cancer! Well, that's my 2 cents.
im glad this story is out.ive told people about this,but since its not in the news,its not true.people just cant think on their own.they have to be told what to think from the news.
There is so much we dont know about everything! Hopefully the arrogance of consensus science can learn from this.
Briefly, thermography of the breast is safer and painless and should be mentioned as an alternative to mamograms.
Whatever health benefit women may receive by not radiating their breast through mammography, TSA security radiation scan will more than off-set them.
There are many things that cause cancer. The crazy thing is after the cancer is gone doctors want to give you a PET scan to make sure there is nothing left. That in itself is more radiation than one should take in 10 years. And by the way just because you use some essential oils and eat healthy does not mean you will not get a lump. Some women just get them for no reason at all and are not genetic carriers. Relating purely to the article it states for women under 30. Realize that the chances of cancer from mammograms is low but it is also not very accurate in pre-menopausal women.
I have never had a mammogram and never will. At some point people have to use common sense. To me, it is not sensible to squash my breasts to the point there is cell rupture and physical injury, while zapping them with radiation.
Furthermore, the cancer industry as a whole does not impress me.
Until you yourself get cancer and want to live. Then I am sure you will do anything to be around for your children or grandchildren
The study can't prove a link between the radiation and breast cancer,
Natural healer, your information is grossly flawed. Almost all if not every single word you uttered was a lie. This "report" was nothing more that slip shod attempts at causing a stir amongst people for ratings and let nutjobs like you go on rants by spreading lies that are also unsubstantiated and can actually in part or full be proven false.
http://salonesoterica.wordpress.com/2007/12/01/why-75-of-doctors-would-refuse-chemothrerapy-on-themselves/
Read it Tracy-2712120. Then read the other dozens of non MSM articles that cite the same.
@Bob fu,
I seriously hope you are joking with that link. That whole site is nothing but a rumormill, whackjob free-for-all. Try educating yourself bob
Natrual healer,
Have you researched Charga? My sister-in-law is going through a very invasive strain of breast cancer. She has decided to undergo chemotherapy every 2 weeks and the drs. also administer a steroid after the chemo treament. She was, understandbly getting sick, losing her hair & weight and a day or 2 after the treaments, she had zero energy.
My wife is herbalist, reiki master and reflexologist. My wife treats my siter-in-law with the 3 previously mentioned and added charga tea. Since the addition to the drs. treatments, she has increased energy, gained weight (might be due to the steroids tho), her hair not only isn't falling out, it's growing back and she isn't getting sick half as much as before they added the homeopathic remedies. She is about 2/3rds of hwer way thru the chemo treaments.
She can't tell her drs. about the addition, because it would negate her insurance coverage.
I believe the drs. are bound by the hospital commitment to big pharma and the insurance companies so they ignore what is proven to help. I find that repulsive.
Tracy- research and read others of your choosing. That is just one I linked. There are dozens more. You can do what you want and stick with the traditional treatment research the MSM puts out there. Research what other countries throughout the world print.
Tracy-
This one references statics and statements from reputable sources. University studies, other coutries' drs. reports, and polls taken by oncologists.
http://cancercommonsense.com/#/statistics/4538345819
I would respond to some of the insanity I have read in the comments to this story, but it just makes me too sad.
The statistical risk is extremely low, the "study" is/was not at all scientific...no controls, no clear indication of other sources of radiation (not just xrays, but CT's, especially); nonetheless, this is one reason why in this country women under 30 with an indicatino for evaluation for possible breast cancer (especially with "lumps") get ultrasounds, not mammograms. (That, and the fact that younger women tend to have more dense breasts, decreasing the sensitivity/specificity of mamograms, even digital mammograms.)
Richard Karsh: The OLDER a woman gets, the denser her breasts become. In addition, the larger the breast, the denser.
It's true. The low grade dose, given for what is considered a long time, it a recipe for cancer growth.
Marlene: Richard is correct. Young women's breasts are dense.
Agree Richard Karsh. In all the years I've been doing mammography we have preformed mammograms on less than 5 women under the age of 30. They have ultrasound or MR instead. Their breasts are so dense at a young age that the images are next to impossible to interpret. And how many women under the age of 30 know whether they have the BRCA genes? Another scare tactic to be picked up by the media with misleading headlines and no one will bother to read the whole story. Just as they did with estrogen replacement therapy.
I stand corrected. Sorry Richard. I was given that 411 eons ago by a tech that did my mammogram.
This same topic keeps coming up on MSNBC/MSN.
The Editor of the British Medical Journal has come out against mammograms and is a nihilist when it comes to this subject. The death rate from breast cancer in England is one of the highest in the western hemisphere because of lack of advocacy for mammography.
An oncogene is a gene that either by itself, or when stimulated by something like radiation, a viral infection, chemical or other as yet undiscovered outside stimuli, can result in the development of cancer.
The hardest to detect breast cancers, small ones lying right on the chest wall, are very often missed by BSE and by physician's examination. This is especially so in young women who have very dense breast tissue and breast cancers in younger women are more deadly usually.
NBCNEWS and their predecessor have been stirring up this dangerous controversy on a regular basis. Bringing up an issue like this repeatedly is nothing more than sensationalism and IMHO has reached the point that it is bordering on malpractice and if someone is swayed by this topic NBCNEWS ought to be held responsible.
As for mammograms being outlawed in Europe, that is absolutely a lie. The topic has once again been hijacked by nay-sayers with little actual knowledge of cancer and who have never had it or had a loved one with it. To those of you who have BRCA gene mutations, read for yourself and decide what you should do. There is a website called NCCN Guidelines, as well as other reputable sites through Harvard, Memorial Sloan Kettering, Mayo Clinic and M D Anderson (and many more) that will give you a much more accurate opinion on this issue than this yellow journalism has done. NBCNEWS: GIVE IT A REST FOR GOD'S SAKE. QUIT FLOGGING THIS SAME ISSUE AND CAUSING POSSIBLE HARM WITH BOGUS CRAP!!!
LINE 7
The study can't prove a link between the radiation and breast cancer,
Perhaps not. Nevertheless, radiation is a known carcinogen. Ask Marie Curie. Ask Rosalind Franklin. As a person with a low risk profile, I had one mammogram and that's all. This is just common sense. People with a different profile may make difference decisions. I think we can do better, e.g. right now in the R&D tube is a blood test thay may detect cancer. What all this hoopla covers up is the fact that cancer is endogenous, i.e., cancer is caused by something external to our bodies like, say, environmental contamination, pesticides, phthalates, teflon, or any of the hundreds of thousands of chemicals industry is permitted to feed us, all this and irradiation, too. No wonder.
You mean exogenous, not endogenous, and you are wrong. It is both.
Really? Radiation isn't normally used in mammogram. The soft tissue doesn't give good differentiated images. Echographic ultrasound images are used (hence the "paddles"). Sure MRI is much better detection; but very expensive. Why do either usless you have some good reason to believe a tumor is present or there is a good reason the person is at high risk?
More to the current point why run a ill informed article with a scary headline and scare uninformed people out of a procedure that they individually might need?
I have known this for years, that mammograms can increase your risk of breast cancer.
But nobody will listen, so I think they shouldn't bother trying to convince anyone anymore.
"The study can't prove a link between the radiation and breast cancer, but is one of the biggest ever to look at the issue."
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! This doesn't even deserve a headline! Oh, well ... the study doesn't prove a darn thing about an actual, possible, tangible link. But, hey, it's a BIG study -- it deserves a headline! NO!
I'm a breast cancer survivor with a BRCA2 mutation. Thank God for my mammogram that detected my breast cancer -- it WASN'T detected in my MRI!
So is this another one of the F.D.A., FCC or ABC scientist new discovery? Well I suggest the FAA take out all of the radiation and scanning screening machines in the Airports............!! This is why "we the people" should not trust doctors or scientist!! Everybody knows science evolves like President Barack Hussein Obama with his perverted mindset has evolved concerning same sex marriages!! Now "the women" are dammed if they do and healthier if they don't have the mammograms!! Just too much radiation being released on the planet!! Just my thoughts!!
Sheesh, I knew somebody would try to get Obama's name in there in a negative way and trash it along with science. DBW-382651, why don't you give it a rest, and stick with what the article talked about, which did not include politics in any way, shape, or form.
BTW, if I had not trusted my Doctors I would have been dead a long time ago. But they took care of me and saved both my life and that of my unborn child. He is now 27, happily married, and got his Masters on April 30th. Thank goodness science evolves.
SuzeLea Even the Lord Jesus Christ said to the doctors of His day......."Physicians heal thy self!!" Why do you think He said that to the doctors? Because they are just practicing medicine..........they are not the healers!! And we are still going to physically die. Just my thoughts!!
Good luck getting your health insurance to cover a MRI rather than a mammogram(exponentially cheaper).
That was my first thought about it as well, unless, of course, you are a member of Congress.
I've had both the MRI and later a mammogram. Never had any trouble with my insurance. And no, I'm not a member of congress.
If we keep on making health decisions based upon what our insurance will pay we will go further and further into sickness. The insurance industry does not support true health and never will because these companies are shills for the pharmeceutical industry and doctors are a part of the machine--it's the only way they can make a buck.
When insurance companies start paying for gym memberships, REAL food and look at care that supports the natural function of the human body as a whole, then we will see some real changes in healthcare in this country.
The bottom line--take responsibility for your own health, research, research, research and don't ever go with the first doctor's opinion. Get a 3rd and 4th if necessary as well.
jenn wrote "When insurance companies start paying for gym memberships, REAL food and look at care that supports the natural function of the human body as a whole, then we will see some real changes in healthcare in this country."
All of the will increase your health insurance membership. Only wealthier people will be able to afford it. What do you think health insurance is for ? free stuff? In reality, health insurance, like any other insurance, is about distributing cost over time and a population. Generally, this means that younger people subsidize older people, and men subsidize women.
Mr. Denali: I have had health insurance that provided discounts on gym memberships. Don't really need that since I am a long distance cyclist.
The very best and safest FDA approved way to find ANY stage breast cancer or any cancer at all is called Thermography. It is a harmless heat scan that finds even the tiniest of tumors because of the increased blood flow (and heat) to a tumor. Simple. No risk from radiation, no doctor having to look over a mammography scan with a magnifying glass and no mistakes. Strange that his is not advertised and most OBGYNs I have talked to don't even know what it is. I am not suprised however, because even without insurance - it only costs about $300. How can you possibly make money on that??
Holly, thank you. I'll be talking to my oncologist about thermography next June.
Holly you are correct. I worked in Alternative/Integrative medicine for 25 years. To add to your post, mammograms and thermograms work on different principles, as you said. They pick up tumor info in different ways. Ideally, one would use both, because they both miss about 15% of tumors, but a DIFFERENT 15 %. The ideal is alternating them, thus you cut your radiation exposure with the mammograms in half. A lot of our patients used thermograms two years, then one mammo, further reducing radiation exposure, but getting good coverage. But the Powers That Be in medicine are much like the PTB in our government. Mostly about money. Imagine that.
This is a technology that never caught on. There are now scanners that detect small areas of concern that see the areas a radiologist can not with the human eye.
This artlcle personifies ambiguity. I'm a BRCA survivor and its very disturbing that these articles keep coming out, one after the other. First they are good, then they are not. And, with all the $$ raised in Walks for the Cure, etc. I'm wondering why the disease is even an issue. Read where one national fundraiser netted 83 million. That's enough to fund a ton of research. This is getting just like that telethon Jerry Lewis has been holding for years. With all the money he supposedly raised for M.D. in the last half century, there should have been some significant strides made to cure that disease as well. I'll continue to contribute to my favorite no-kill animal shelter.
I'll have to agree with you, Marlene. Where is all the money? Where are all the researchers??? Where is the "cure"? We have a no-kill animal shelter, too, and it is well worth any and all donations!
I've always wondered why cancer research doesn't seem to progress. And what would happen to all the jobs and foundations if cancer were cured. They'd all be out of work, wouldn't they.....
How about all the "breakthroughs" that come up every 2 years then disappear no sooner than you hear about them. As a male I'd love to see all the money go into one pot to fund all research. There is a link between all forms of cancer - find that link and you've got a better foundation to work from than blindly shooting with a different weapon each time, hoping to kill the monster. We all get cancer. We all get horrible, aggressive types. I get upset seeing so much attention and money dumped into one type for one gender when we all get it. Even men get breast cancer on top of that - so what's the link between it all? It's obviously nothing to do with gender at that point.
Furthermore, after seeing my mother-in-law make it through advanced stage 3 breast cancer only to be left with chemo-brain, no breasts, and dealing with a MRSA infection from a botched attempt at implants. I'm left wondering about my wife. We're both young (27 for me, 23 for her) and I've yet to hear her doctor be concerned about her chances. They said her mothers was 'stress induced'. Funny, I thought they didn't know what caused cancer. So there's this BRCA mutation that can increase a persons cancer risk - why hasn't my wife been tested? WTF is wrong with our country and it's medical treatment. Thank you, old people. Thank you for your party loyalties and electing crap politicians. Thank you for suing the medical community and every other industry into fail-safe mode. Thank you for letting companies and government think for you and become your wet-nurse. Thank you for giving up everything and demanding nothing.
Now you complain when it's a bit too late. I was born into this - what's your excuse?
JohnDoe wrote "As a male I'd love to see all the money go into one pot to fund all research."
Most of the money goes to women just so that they don't have to amputate aging, sagging breasts.
#1. My family has a BIG history of breast cancer. At one point I had 6 generations alive and 4 (yes that is FOUR) of the 6 were diagnosed with Breast Cancer. The "gene" is in our family. Insurance companies will not pay for the "gene" testing unless it is a direct decendant....ie: mother, sister, grandmother. If it is a cousin, Aunt or someone else not in a direct line, the insurance companies do not pay for the "genetic testing". It is typically around $4000 in the Pacific Northwest.
#2. If you are "genetically tested positive" for the "gene" you are given options to have a DOUBLE MASECTOMY as well as a HYSTERECTOMY because the "gene" also causes Uterin cancer which is much much more difficult to detect. Insurance companies are now paying for these surgeries, but did not pay for them as simple as 5 years ago.
#3 If you have a family that is cropping up with breast cancer, it is highly recommended by the OB/GYN to get a minimum of a mamogram once a year. They not only do a mamogram, but they typically follow up with ultrasounds to view any abnormal breast lumps, bumps, etc.
Fortunately myself and my daughter have fallen into the "two left that dont have breast cancer" bucket. Three of the females that had breast cancer and either a partcial masectomy, whole breast masectomy or a double breast masectomy have passed away -- an luckily not from breast cancer because it was caught earlier enough by breast cancer screening. The one that is still alive has her overies as she refuses to let go of that body part, however her choice puts her at risk of ovarian cancer to over 50% probable because of the "gene".
Where ever the gene came from or why it has decided to "live" in my family is beyond my understanding, but I do know that the screening saved (or prolonged) the life of the family members that have gotten breast cancer.
There are always 2 sides of a story. My family holds the gene and I choose to get my annual breast exams without fail. My daughter is still young enough to where she does not have to worry about it unless I get diagnosed. I would much rather be safe than sorry. ME? I am going to do the mamo's no matter how painful or uncomfortable they are. I want to know before the diagnosis is to late for me.
Just sayin.
I hope you and your daughter are healthy and happy for a very, very long time. The disease, if caught early, is no longer a death sentence. I passed my 10th year of remission on February 19th of this year (Yay). However, its a life changer, no doubt about that. I wouldn't be seeing any doctor (except a dentist) if I didn't have this pesky diagnosis. Good thing he (my oncologist) is cute. :)
MadeiAlaska wrote "As a male I'd love to see all the money go into one pot to fund all research."
Part with the breasts in a preventative double masectomy and save costs with the hysterectomy at the same time.
So Mr. Denali, if a man has a history in his family of testicular cancer, he should part with his 'nads as a preventative measure?? I didn't lose my hair or my girls to the delight and relief of every man I've ever known.
Do you think this might have something to do with Obamacare? From what I understand the insurance cos. are going to try and reduce cost and what better way than to tell you that a supposed life saving test causes illness? They'll make it so you don't want the test whether you need it or not. 2 years ago my MD tried to force me into a mammogram, tellling me there was no risk what-so-ever. What other tests/exams are going to be considered dangerous,harmful etc.............?
It has nothing to do with Obamacare Scully. It has everything to do with women's health. There are arguments for and against women's health issues. My family is basically required to get the mamo's to save or prolong our lives. In this post, people have spoken about thermograms, which I personally have never heard of. "IF" this is a less evasive approach to early detection, I am ALL for it. The mamo's are absolutely no fun and personally I dont look forward to them except for the fact that my family carries the "gene", so early detection is a life saver for us. I understand radiation is not good for the body, but think about all the other things in life that we take advantage of every single day of our lives that is NOT GOOD FOR THE BODY! Nothing is life is easy and nothing in life comes without some sort of conscequence....Just the way it is in our American society. And to answer your last question.... What other tests/exams are going to be considered dangerous, harmful etc? Well, think about cell phones, television, cars, airplanes, the food from the grocery stores.... the list goes on and on and on.....
Scully, you just can't be this stupid. Have you tried finishing high school or did you sleep through all the classes? Do yourself a favor and don't repeat what the politicos tell you to think. Try learning and thinking for yourself. Learn the provisions of the healthcare plan so you don't come across so idiotic.
20% of the people reading this will contract a venereal disease. Coincidence?
ass
MadeinAlaska, 100% correct ASSessment.
I can find parallels between a 1,000,000 things. Peanut butter to bed wetting, it doesn't mean they have anything to do with one another.
OMZ, you need to up your meds.....or leave the room and let the adults converse.
obama's my zero,
Love your name...let's hope he zero's out in November.
You are correct that parallels can be found if that's what is being searched for and the article certainly sounds like it started off searching for the correlation, not arriving at it benignly.
Kathy...most people start out as Democrats then they grow up. Santa doesn't bring prosperity.
My mom has been begging me not to get mammograms every year because of the radiation. She would always tell me nobody in Europe gets mammograms each year. Maybe this is why the rate of breast cancer is the highest in the United States. Not sure but it could have really something to do with it.
Mammograms are ILLEGAL in Germany and other European countries. My heart goes out to those that feel that mammograms saved their life. Thermography detects changes in the breast tissue YEARS before a mammogram can. How many times have you heard "I am so glad I kept going for my 6 month mammogram."? Then one day they tell you they have cancer. WHY? Think about the experience. Your breast is put between 2 plates and squished until you can't stand the pain. When pain is caused, CELLS ARE DAMAGED!! Then the damaged cells are given a dose of radiation. It's no wonder women come down with cancer when regularly getting mammograms. There isn't any pain nor radiation with thermography. Women can be educated in using essential oils that will dissolve any breast lumps and keep them away. A healthy diet that is akalyine in nature will go far in prevention of cancer. Too many women just blindly do what their drs say. Be empowered! Take responsibility for your own health! Here is a great web-site that can educate you so you can make a choice based on knowledge. Doctors often don't want to hear about this, too controlled by the insurance and drug companies. It's a blessing if you have an open minded dr. who is willing to listen and be educated.
This is not my site, I often refer clients here because I think it is the most comprehensive site I've found. They also have a directory too. breastthermography com
The comments that the men have made . . . . dare I say let them put the family jewels on two plates to get squished and see how long they will feel that this is the only test to have!
Natural Healer, You are lying again, you need to stop it
DUH!
Richard is correct. And Suzlea you cancer wasn't caught on an MRI because MRI's don't see the micro-calcifications that are the BEGINNING STAGE of breast cancer. Mammograms are still considered the "gold standard" by the medical community. Ultrasounds and MRI's are used in conjunction with mammograms. The newer digital mammograms pose less radiation than film/screen. So, don't be afraid. In European countries there is a higher rate of death due to breast cancer. That's because they don't get annual mammograms. England is trying to get baseline mammograms for women starting at age 40. It is currently at age 50 and only every 2 years. Also, it is true that young women who present with a problem get ultrasounds first. Remember breast cancer risk goes up with age.
Young women have dense breasts. As we age we get fatty replacement in our breasts. Fatty breasts may be bigger but are far less dense. Although, some women retain their dense breast tissue well into there 60's and beyond, it's not the norm.
Mammograms save lives, it's a fact. Non compliant women are the ones who put themselves at risk.
This article is really about women with gene mutations that are already more at risk to get breast cancer. Risk = chance, just because you're at a higher risk doesn't mean you are doomed to get breast cancer. It just means you have to be more diligent about getting your annual exams. This goes for pap smears too as gene mutations also cause gynecological cancers as well as breast cancer.
"Non compliant" - is that the term for women who don't do what the AMA says?
Maybe "non-compliant" is the AMA's politically correct term for the "B" word.
The journalist didn't provide the study. Based on what I read, this is junk science, scaremongering horse manure. Let some incompetent researcher propose a "disaster" theory and some equally stupid news journalist will blow it into facts! It is time for journalist malpractice lawsuits. If a news journalist creates a health article that is not based on scientific fact, they should be sued. The BIG WORD in this article is "MAY". Crap, Obama may piss on his podium during the speech!
"No one should think that they should never get an X-ray because they have the BRCA1
or 2 gene mutations," he said. "Just be careful that the X-rays you get are really the ones
that you need."
ARE YOU KIDDING ME???? If you or your family has that mutation, you should NEVER EVER have a chest xray!!!! You must insist that you have MRI, ultrasound or biopsy. NO EXCEPTIONS! My sister is dying right now because she had Xrays when she should have had MRIs. Our mother had breast cancer too and that should have been a huge red flag to her docs. Worse than that, her "oncologist" called her cancer a "pansy cancer" that didn't need aggressive chemo. That was all malpractice and now she is paying for it with her life. DON'T LET ANYONE TELL YOU THAT YOU HAVE A PUNY LITTLE CANCER. MAKE THEM GIVE YOU THE MOST AGGRESSIVE TREATMENT THERE IS! If you don't get the right care, raise holy hell. Don't take no for an answer, it's your LIFE!
Have a biopsy instead of xrays? Do you realize that most breast biopsies are done with guidance from mammograms? And most other biopsies are done with CT guidance (which is WAY more radiation)? And the most aggressive treatment for cancer would be radiation. Which is exactly what it sounds like. A chest xray is only a drop in the bucket compared to a biopsy or radiation therapy. I'm sorry to hear about your sister, but I can guarantee that the chest xrays didn't cause her cancer.
Maybe someone can help me. I had an aunt that passed away from breast cancer and my mom have a few scares in the past few years. Well I am 24 went to the doctor 6 months ago because I had been having pain in my breast mainly a certain area where I couldnt even touch it. Went to the doctor he couldnt feel a lump but still wanted me to get a ultrasound and mammogram. so I had my my very first mammogram (which didn't hurt at all) but I was told to come back and get the test done over again in 6 months. I am suppose to go in two weeks so after reading this article and comments I am confused. Should I still get the mammogram and ultrasound or do I need to tell my doctor to switch the order to a MRI????? I want whatever test will give me the best results without hurting my health. Buy the time they order my aunts test it was too late for her so I am just trying to catch anything early. Thanks
Most insurance companies won't cover an MRI unless you have a direct genetic history of breast cancer. If your mom was diagnosed with cancer as well as (I'm going to assume) her sister, then your MRIs would probably be covered. I'm not a mammo tech, but my guess would be they're probably going to do the 6 month mammogram as a follow up. If the mammogram is normal (meaning no cancer), they'll probably tell you to start your yearly exams at age 40.
PLEASE, PLEASE, go for your mammogram, the earlier things are detected the
better your chance of being a survivor. DO NOT let this article scare you from
having what could potentially save your life. You are 24 years old and have
your WHOLE life in front of you! Do whatever it takes to make sure you are not
in the same situation as your aunt. I
have a friend who had breast cancer, thanks to her mammogram she is a survivor!
It has been a rough couple of years, granted but she BEAT it all because it was
detected earlier enough. Believe me, as a nurse I have seen MORE harm of women
NOT getting a yearly mammogram (starting at age 40, younger when you are at
risk). PLEASE, PLEASE GO, be healthy!
DEE DEE, I whole hartedly agree with Grammy, my mother has been battling this disease for a very long time, Having an annual mammogram would have found her disease at an early stage. Please go get whatever tests your doctor suggests do not be afraid, your doctors can address any fears you may have. Ask them what is best for you and why, take a pro active stance concerning your health. Hun, you have a whole life ahead of you, make it a healthy one. take Care!
Dee Dee, a single follow-up mammogram makes sense if they saw a possibly suspicious spot on the first one and want to see if it's getting rapidly larger, or if you've continued to have symptoms and it's believable that a suspicious growth that wasn't visible before could be now. What you had was a diagnostic mammogram, since you were having symptoms. If you were not having a problem, screening mammograms at your age would not be reasonable, your aunt's history notwithstanding. You ought to ask for a copy of the first mammogram report, and you ought to ask your doctor, on the assumption that your pain is not cancer, what else it might be (e.g., a treatable infection?) and how it might be made to stop. If the problem went away, you would no longer be in need of diagnosis. Huge numbers of women normally have fibrocystic breasts, and some find that lumps become fewer and less painful if they avoid caffeine; you might give that a try. You should not be left to suffer continuing pain while being cyclically exhorted to fear cancer then told to go away and not bother them because you don't have cancer.
How about a female-specific health plan (call it "Smart Woman Plus") that provides women with all of the health services they want and charge them more for it ? The bulk of health services are consumed by women, yet men are require to pay an equivalent amount because it is illegal to charge men and women differently in a group plan.
Women live five years longer than men. If some of the money spent on women to extend women's lives by 1-2 years were instead spent on men to extend men's lives by 1-2 years, would that be fair to close the longevity gap?
Fine by me in theory, though is it possible that the alleged excess consumption of health services by women would not exist if you excluded spending related to pregnancy and childbirth (usually not abnormal conditions, but highly medicalized in our culture) or diseases of the organs women must have to bear and nurse children? If so, I'd say men are welcome to equal spending as long as they don't mind producing half of the kids in future. Now, how about the racial longevity gap and the socioeconomic status longevity gap, each of which is at least as large in America? Would you think it equally fair if some of the money spent to extend the lives of rich white old people were instead spent on extending the lives of working-class African-Americans?
None of you know what your talking about!
None of you know what you are talking about.
Ladies, just come on down to my house and I'll massage those babies back to health....
While it's a good idea to avoid exposure to radiation as much as possible, the actual amount in a typical mammogram is very low, compared to the natural radiation that everyone is exposed to every day. And yeah, if MRI is an option, it's a better to have one than a mammogram...if your insurance company will cover it (many don't unless you have a strong personal/genetic history of cancer), AND if you're okay laying on your stomach in a tube that's a foot around in diameter for an hour and a half. Unless you're having mammograms weekly from the age of 40 on, chances are the amount of radiation you're exposed to is too low to cause cancer; even if it was high enough to cause cancer, it would take 30 years to manifest. And let's be honest...by the time someone is exposed to THAT much radiation, they likely won't have 30 years left to live in the first place. Same for regular xrays, and even CT scans. People automatically hear radiation and feel like they need to run for the hills right away. Personally, I'd rather have my boobs squished once a year than die of breast cancer. Or have a CT scan when I think my appendix is busted than to worry about the cancer risk. But that's just me. Everything in moderation.
I just know they are painful as hell and only a man could have invented them. I request and obtain ultrasound and have for years. My insurance covers it.
Funny you say that because I've heard plenty of women say they barely felt a thing. Also, mammogram compression was invented by two men. Plenty of women perform them however. Don't like it? There are other tests. Just remember they all detect different things and do so in different ways. Cancer loves to play the hide and seek game so I wouldn't rely on one test.
Srich wrote "only a man could have invented them"
This is because men invent just about everything.
Well Vincent maybe these super intelligent men should try putting a testicle in there and test the stupid machine before implementing it??? Yep John, I have heard that too, they say it depends on hormones at any given time-but I think it's very painful.
Most of the people on this thread don't realize that the amount of natural radiation you're exposed to in a year is far greater than the amount of radiation you get from a yearly mammogram. Or even if you have a CT scan once a year. Personally, I'd rather have my boobs squished once a year than die from breast cancer. Or have a CT scan when I think my appendix is busted open, or a chest xray when I have a cough I can't get rid of. And good luck getting those MRIs...most insurance companies won't cover them as a "screening" exam, unless you have a strong personal/genetic history of cancer. Unless you live by a nuclear power plant that just melted down, or you go in for a CT scan every time you sneeze, radiation is NOT something to overreact about.
So it looks like it is really the liberals who are so forcefully sending women to get the mammo's by making them free who are the ones waging war on women. They are sending them to get cancer. Oh what a tangled web we weave...........
Want to let us know where you got that information? Because as far as I know, liberals can't set up any type of medical test. And I was wondering how they are "forcefully" sending women to get the mammos. Just because they may have made a test free does not constitute "forcefully" sending women to get anything. So please give us the url where you got this information.
Normalperson is being ironic, i.e. the health care initiative that provides insurance to everyone? Obamacare? As is "the liberal agenda is to provide health care for all so that women will get more mammograms and get cancer and then feed the health care industry."
I thought it was funny...
@ Natural Healer - I don't know where you got that information but it is wrong! Mammo's are NOT ILLIGAL in european countries, like Germany!!! Women age 50-69 are getting every 2 years a reminder from their health insurance to get the mammo! It is recommended, that younger women get an ultrasound instead of a mammo and women over the age of 50 to get both, ultrasound and mammo every 2 years. Because of the pain involved and possible damage while doing a mammo, more and more doctor do just an ultrasound regardless of age!