Mammograms reduce breast cancer risk

The statistics from a recent study is startling: Women diagnosed with breast cancer by a routine mammogram have a 95 percent chance of surviving.

[Jo Firth]

I do not agree with your headline that mammograms reduce breast cancer risk. I understand a mammogram is designed to pick up cancer that is already there? To me, that is not risk reduction.
By the time a breast cancer is 1 cubic centimeter it is 1 billion cells.
In Australia, a report has come out for the government screening program recommending women under 45 years are not screened, as mammograms pose more harm than good for this group of young women.
Thankfully there are other options, that also look at physiological indicators, which usually show up prior to anatomical structures on a mammogram.
Jo Firth
Safe Breast Imaging
Australia

[Sofia]

Jo Firth wrote:

I do not agree with your headline that mammograms reduce breast cancer risk. I understand a mammogram is designed to pick up cancer that is already there? To me, that is not risk reduction.
By the time a breast cancer is 1 cubic centimeter it is 1 billion cells.
In Australia, a report has come out for the government screening program recommending women under 45 years are not screened, as mammograms pose more harm than good for this group of young women.
Thankfully there are other options, that also look at physiological indicators, which usually show up prior to anatomical structures on a mammogram.
Jo Firth
Safe Breast Imaging
Australia

Mammograms can detect early stages, which hopefully can give us a better prognoses.
If this were a male problem, we would have a cure by now.

[no name]

Mammograms are a scam just like everything else about the trillion dollar cancer industry. Double blind studies ahow that your chance of being alive ten years after a breast cancer diagnosis are the same whether you get chemo and radiation or do nothing .You are just making doctors and big pharma richer.Did I mention that chemo will probably sterilize you and give you cancer .

[debee]

<In Australia, a report has come out for the government screening program recommending women under 45 years are not screened, as mammograms pose more harm than good for this group of young women>

Breast cancer is not exclusive to women 50 and over. Just ask actress Christina Applegate, age 36, actress Ann Jillian, age 35, singer Kylie Minogue, age 37, Melissa Etheridge, age 43, etc.

Ask people in the community, plenty of women, developed breast cancer while in their 30's and early 40's. In fact, there was an article this week on AOL, on a girl who was TEN YEARS OLD who got breast cancer.

Mammograms are a tool to help find the cancer but there is no substitute for breast self exam.
You can have a mammogram in June and find a cancerous lump in December.

Years ago, breast cancer screening used to begin at 35 and later, that age was raised.
Bottom line, if you have breasts, you're at risk.

Perhaps the people in Australia that say women are 45 can't benefit ought reconsider.

[debee]

http://cancer-types.suite101.com/article.cfm/...

[JRLoneStar73]

Mother in law passed away from breast cancer. I wouldn't think twice to get the mammo.

[Natural Healing]

Bottomlinessecrets.com
www.BottomlineUltimateHealing.com
TrueHealth.com
BottanicChoice.com

[Lowell Gal]

debee wrote:

<In Australia, a report has come out for the government screening program recommending women under 45 years are not screened, as mammograms pose more harm than good for this group of young women>
Breast cancer is not exclusive to women 50 and over. Just ask actress Christina Applegate, age 36, actress Ann Jillian, age 35, singer Kylie Minogue, age 37, Melissa Etheridge, age 43, etc.
Ask people in the community, plenty of women, developed breast cancer while in their 30's and early 40's. In fact, there was an article this week on AOL, on a girl who was TEN YEARS OLD who got breast cancer.
Mammograms are a tool to help find the cancer but there is no substitute for breast self exam.
You can have a mammogram in June and find a cancerous lump in December.
Years ago, breast cancer screening used to begin at 35 and later, that age was raised.
Bottom line, if you have breasts, you're at risk.
Perhaps the people in Australia that say women are 45 can't benefit ought reconsider.

My mother was diagnosed at 44 and died at 52. According to her doctor, her cancerous lump was the size of a grapefruit by the time she was diagnosed (she died 25 years ago...so, my guess is that she knew but decided to ignore it). I would never miss an annual mammogram which can, and does, alert women to issues for which treatment can save lives. If this were primarily a man's disease, we would have a cure by now.

[Gail Perry]

Jo, it's a news headline -- short. It reduces the risk of dying. That was very clear from the article. Find the cancer early -- 95% chance of survival. That's up there with non-melanoma skin cancer.

Find it later and the survival rate drops to 58%.

No name, if you're going to post untrue myths you ought to at least have the courage to put your name behind it.

[Judi Fairweather]

I had my first mammogram at age 39. Due to the talents of Dr. Loring at the Women's Imaging Center, a suspicious area was noted. Upon biopsy, it was found to be one of the most invasive, aggressive forms of breast cancer. After surgery through Dana Farber and chemo with Dr. Zimbler at BHO, I am here six years later to tell my story. My children were not yet 2 and 5 at the time of my diagnosis. Get your mammogram. Period.

[Gail Perry]

Judi I am so glad to hear of your good outcome. You are what it's all about -- early detection does more than save lives -- it saves whole families. How much better off are your children to have their mother with them? It's not measurable.

[Trina]

no name wrote:

Mammograms are a scam just like everything else about the trillion dollar cancer industry. Double blind studies ahow that your chance of being alive ten years after a breast cancer diagnosis are the same whether you get chemo and radiation or do nothing .You are just making doctors and big pharma richer.Did I mention that chemo will probably sterilize you and give you cancer .

Are you from another planet?

[Local]

Men do get breast cancer. To say that if men had this problem it would be solved by now is disingenuous. If it were true, men would no longer have heart attacks, or prostate cancer, either.

[Gail]

Local wrote:

Men do get breast cancer. To say that if men had this problem it would be solved by now is disingenuous. If it were true, men would no longer have heart attacks, or prostate cancer, either.

Hate to disagree with ya here, but....most male problems get the first look.

Common huh?

[Gail Perry]

First of all, that's a different Gail than me. I do not agree that if more men got breast cancer it would be solved by now. Statisticaly, women live longer than men.

[Tricia]

Some cancers are so small and tiny and may never grow into anything (Dr. Oz says this). So why do all women have to subject themselves to the stress of biopsies and waiting for the results of biopsies not to mention the initial stress from getting the call that your mammogram may be abnormal only to find out there is not a problem.

The problem is that mammograms find many things that are simply not something to worry about and biopsies are routinely recommended for the smallest of areas that appear suspicious on a mammogram. It's easy to see how even though the lives of some people may be saved, the whole process is a nightmare of stress and needless worry for the majority of women!!

[Gail Perry]

Tricia, the operative word there is MAY. MAY not grow much.

Or they could grow quite rapidly, as mine did.

They could metastticize quite early. That happens too.

A biopsy is NO BIG DEAL. The problem isn't that mammograms sometimes find things that turn out to be benign. It's that foolish people there's something wrong with knowing for sure that that little thing either isn't cancer or was found when it was so small that there really was nothing to be scared of.

You could have one like mine, not visible on one mammogram and then 3 cm in size nine months later. Thank God I did self-exams.

The process is not a "nightmare of NEEDLESS worry." Anyone who gets that worked up over a very small spot on a mammogram needs some therapy, in my opinion. The scare is there whether something shows up on a mammogram or not for any sensible woman, because sensible women should know that mammograms also MISS small tumors. A mammogram read to be "clear" does not guarantee that there are no tumors there.

It's worth it, women. It's worth the worry to either have a benign result or to deal with the cancer. In fact a number of good things, unexpected personal gifts, have come to me as a result of having breast cancer.

It's time to calm down about this. We're all going to leave this world for the next one some day, but I'm very glad that I didn't leave via breast cancer at the age of 60.