Mammography, perceptions and actual - food for thought

I find mammogram appointments often crop up at the wrong time. Like just before Xmas so that the stressing comes in the run-up and spoils things somewhat. That is a bummer. But I do go.

The first twin's stress started much sooner and the results were the same. It suggested, as does the diagrams in the OP, that finding the lump sooner made very little difference and X-rays in themselves may escalate the problem.

I suppose I should explain myself a bit more. I'm not against screening, far from it, and go for mammograms and happily take part in the annual BC screening etc. I paid to have annual mammograms when I lived in SA.

My resistance, if that is what it is, stems from the fact that from time to time I feel slightly overwhelmed by the thought or suggestions all the things that are out to stalk us, and the constants "tests" to "pass", the wait for the letter in the post, it would be much better if you could be told then and there. Others on here have expressed the same experiences.

So, a bit of perspective and expressing a balanced view is not a bad idea.

If I had had an early cancer detected by a screening programme, I would probably be a complete convert and first in the queue.

It depends whether you prefer to know as soon as possible about a medical malfunction and do something about it at once, or stay in blissful ignorance until you are up against it.

I know which I prefer.

I still don't care - these stories crop up from time to time, as do the ones about the person who smoked forty a day and lived to be one hundred. I didn't like chemotherapy one bit, but am grateful for the outcome.

Very grateful, and, like anno will pay for mammograms when I reach her age

What caused the first twin so much more stress, and what unpleasant treatments did she have that her sister didn't? It doesn't make sense to me.

So the only difference was that one had her boobs squashed regularly and the other did not? No extra medication or surgery? Mammograms are briefly uncomfortable, but can be survived and are not invasive.

And if the second twin's cancer had been deeper into the mammalian tissue, or her breasts had been naturally lumpy and bumpy and lulled her into a false sense of safety ("It's just the underlying milk ducts still") she would not have detected it as soon as the mammogram would have.

The treatment was the same and they both at the same time.

Yes, I don't understand that point either, Experigran, unless you're saying both women died, but the second twin didn't have any treatment...

But did the second, who had not had the mammograms, also have surgery and chemotherapy? Once the cancer was discovered (by mammogram or by the patient finding the lump) was the treatment just the same?

My small lump was found by mammogram. It was removed, and I had no chemo or radiotherapy. Nearly ten years later, I am still cancer-free. If I had not found it until it was bigger and had perhaps spread, I would have had far more stress and unpleasant treatments than I did have.

Siddhartha Mukherjee writes in his book 'The Emperor of all Maladies' about this. He tells of identical twins and breast cancer. One always had mammograms regularly and, when a tiny lump was detected, underwent surgery and chemotherapy. The other one refused to have mammograms and went to her doctor only when she detected a lump herself. The outcome with both these, almost identical, tumours was exactly the same, but the first one had had more stress and more unpleasant treatments. He too said the benefits were small. In fact, almost the same as those in the diagrams.

I have been having mammograms for 23 years and will continue to do so, even when I have to book them myself.

Every so often someone decides that we are a lot of statistics, and that if they just tell us that it is not cost-effective to diagnose our cancer in time, we will obediently sacrifice our statistically insignificant lives.

We beg to differ.

I'm a breast cancer survivor too (fingers firmly crossed) and I will carry on having mammograms, cervical smears etc at every opportunity.

Aka - I haven't seen that thread but thank you for explaining.

Having hung around various forums for many years these arguments against this, that or the other tend to rear their heads once governments start to claim poverty - up until that point, everyone was proud of the advances in science and medicine; go figure that one!

Holly there was a thread some time ago which tried to say preventive medicine was a waste of time, resources, not cost effective. This thread will doubtless go the same way unless common sense prevails.

I'm not hanging round to read any more ......

I don't even understand what it's trying to portray

I attended a routine mammogram and they found a tiny tumour - way too small to have been felt by me or anyone else - but tiny as it was, it was of a highly aggressive type and had already breached the initial safety margin removed in surgery. Without the mammogram, it would have remained undetected until it had spread to other organs that would have meant it's presence became 'felt'.

No-one will ever convince me that mammograms are a waste of time (or, more likely argument, resources).

Here we go again!