Mammography, perceptions and actual - food for thought

Glad that you are fine Jud.

I wondered whether I had actually been damaged by it, by the squeezing itself.

Good point Whitewave! I went religiously to my mammograms but developed BC in between so detected by myself. When identified, it measured 6 mm. When removed 1 week later it measured 12 mm! These things can grow quickly. The earlier they are detected and treated, the better the outcome. I'm still here 6 years later. And I will continue to take up the offer of screening, for reassurance if nothing else. BTW for those complaining about being squeezed, you should try it after a lumpectomy but it is still worth the discomfort IMO.

Last year was signed off by the oncologist, and I asked the question about when to start the mammogram programme - I have been having them every 2 years - he seemed very laid back about it but didn't think I needed to go more every 3 years. So will sign up at the appropriate time.

There is a suggestion that we may be over-treated, but quite honestly although I hate mammograms with a vengence - I too have big boobs - I would prefer over-treatment to under-treatment and perhaps oblivion.

"having read crun's post, I am not so sure that I will"

Better still, read Gigerenzer, then you'll be sure you're interpreting the test results correctly and making an informed decision. It's an interesting book anyhow.

jings I managed to change the time of year by saying I couldn't manage the date they gave me. It got changed from pretty much the first week in January, which was awful and snowy and treacherous the two times I had been, to July, which was so much more pleasant and meant far fewer layers to remove.

hmm. I had my first mammogram 4 years ago. It came back clear, but the process was awful[I have big boobs, and they were shoved and pushed in to the machine until they fitted].
So last year, I had an appointment to go back in, and I said no thanks.

Having read this thread, I thought I would go to the next appointment in two years time, but having read crun's post, I am not so sure that I will.

I dont want to put others off though. I sahould imagine that the procedure is perfectly fine for those with smaller boobs.

Since decades, there have been debates going on for the mammography process and its screening frequency. It’s important to understand that mammography is the most important step in detecting breast cancer at early stage.

Yes it is true that there has been a downside of conventional mammography but now the company Hologic present at ilexmedical.com has overcome the flaws and improved the cancer detection rate rapidly.

The 3D mammography system has the potential to detect very small tissues and reduce the call back required in conventional mammography.

I get you Crun
The last time I was sent a mammography appointment, I read the leaflet from cover to cover.
It said that every year 4000 women in the UK are treated unnecessarily.

This thread is a bit like the PSA one elsewhere on the forum. The issue with screening is not one of cost saving, but one of test reliability, and understanding the results.

Gerd Gigerenzer is a psychology professor who specialises in the understanding of risk, and he devotes most of a chapter in here to the statistics of mammography. The problem is not just false negatives, but false positives too. He also found that the majority of doctors (~80-90% IIRC) didn't have the understanding of risk required to correctly explain the test results to the patients. Both doctors and patients were wildly overestimating the risks.

My BC didn't show up on a mammogram or scan. It was only found by deep core biopsy, as the radiographer had an intuition that all was not well. I really do owe her my life, as it was a very aggressive form but caught very early.

Breast cancer in men is more common that realised, and as we don't look for it, goes undetected.

I found a breast lump in DH today - its his second one. The first we were told was caused by the statins and since then they have been changed but the dose doubled so we go back to the GP. He had a needle biopsy last time and he is not looking forward to this. men to develop breast cancer but cant have mammograms so we have to be vigilant around our bits and theirs I suppose.

Mammography is a sure way to detect breast cancer. Fighting with breast cancer is only possible by earlier screening. Women typical cause of death is the breast cancer. Its important to go for mammography, x-ray, ultra-sound and even biopsy for the treatment

Here in France they do tell you the result straight away. Then the x-rays go off to be checked again and you get a letter after that. Last time my mammogram was a bit unclear so the doctor immediately did an ultrasound. This is all done at the specialist x-ray centre which is in every small town. The other bit that I like is that you keep the x-rays and take them with you next time. The checks are done every two years.
We do pay quite a bit towards are health care here, but it is good.

After one mammogram I received a phone call instead of my stamped addressed envelope and was asked to go again that day. I was told that they would not make me wait for the result of this and not to get dressed in case I had to see the doctor. A little while later I was asked to go down to the doctor's waiting room, where I sat for an hour. When I went in the doctor asked if I was well. I always joke if I am nervous and simply said - "Well you've cured the constipation!" She almost fell off her chair laughing. An ultra sound scan showed it to be five cysts!

According to the authorities, only between 70 and 80% of those women asked to go for a mammogram actually have one. So probably the extra one who dies of breast cancer will be among those who was asked and did not go.

finding the lump sooner made very little difference

I'm not sure that's true. A malignant tumour (and if it has metastasized) will double it's size every 5 - 6 weeks so the longer it is left, the bigger the threat. There are different types of tumour which will affect available treatment. Given the position of breast tumours, it really isn't a good idea to take chances.

I have a condition called A-Typical Ductal Hyperplasia which gives me a slightly higher risk of developing breast cancer, small but nonetheless slightly higher than if I did not have it. I am grateful for the care of the clinic at the QE11 in Welwyn and will always take up their offer of yearly mammograms as a check on my continuing heath.

Most lumps are found by the patients, or their partner, than by mammograms, but, as in some of the cases here, a mammogram would have been the only way to detect a lump in situ. (I used to be an Ambassador for CRUK, with a special brief for breast cancer)

Has there been any indication that 'the authorities' intend stopping mammograms?

I just got stopped from posting the last post by someone ringing up to speak to my husband!

Yes, I've had all mine, Grannyknot. I was wondering if the research is a way of trying to change the way we think and justify the authorities in stopping mammograms.
My husband was diagnosed with cerebellar ataxia when he was sixty. From then until he died from brain cancer, he had lots of MRI and CT scans, really to see what changes there were in his brain. There was nothing anyone could do to alter the progression of the disease.
I have asked if the scans could have had anything to do with the brain cancer, and one radiologist said that he might have killed one extra person over the years he has been doing the scan. All the scans he had, and nobody found the brain tumour, possibly because they were not looking for it.
When we do not have mammograms, that's the risk we take, of being the extra one in one thousand that will die of breast cancer. It's the opposite of studying the brain.

durhamjen no it doesn't frighten me into having mammograms, on the contrary I find it quite reassuring.

Surely it's about our perceptions of what happens with or without mammograms.
We think that a lot more women die from breast cancer than really do, whether they have mammograms or not.
We think that 80 women per thousand who have mammograms die of cancer, where in reality only four per thousand die.
We think that twice as many die from breast cancer when they have not had mammograms, whereas the same number die.
Does thinking this way frighten us into having mammograms?