<p>momma-three, you realize that under these guidelines everyone in your family would absolutely be encouraged to do early screening, right? The wait-til-50 recommendation does not apply to anyone with a family history of breast cancer (especially early breast cancer, which is rare and virulent, and which is especially likely to show up in connection with childbirth), whether or not they have done genetic testing.</p>
<p>Your posts would lead to the conclusion that breast cancer mortality in Europe, where the new U.S. guideline is what has been followed for decades, ought to be noticeably higher than in the U.S., especially among younger women. But . . . it isn’t. It’s basically the same. Notwithstanding socialized medicine, a more restricted screening regime, much less spent on tests and procedures – no different.</p>
<p>I have family in Canada, too, and they are disgusted by the U.S. health care system. They can’t understand how we can possibly tolerate it.</p>
<p>It makes such sense-- of course people who have a family history should be tested early and often. Others don’t need that. And maybe they need something else–if they have a family history of heart disease, for instance, and they may need more vigilance there. The same careful research that led to the discovery of genetic markers has led to the conclusion that fewer mammograms are needed for many women. Soon that research may find out more about which cancers are more dangerous and why. It’s one step after another in the direction of better health for women. I (daughter of a breast cancer survivor) am grateful.</p>
<p>"With its new recommendations, the USPSTF is essentially telling women that mammography at age 40 to 49 saves lives; just not enough of them. The task force says screening women in their 40s would reduce their risk of death from breast cancer by 15 percent, just as it does for women in their 50s. But because women in their 40s are at lower risk of the disease than women 50 and above, the USPSTF says the actual number of lives saved is not enough to recommend widespread screening. The most recent data show us that approximately 17 percent of breast cancer deaths occurred in women who were diagnosed in their 40s, and 22 percent occurred in women diagnosed in their 50s. Breast cancer is a serious health problem facing adult women, and mammography is part of our solution beginning at age 40 for average risk women. "</p>
<p>As someone who had no risk factors (and I had 4 kids and breastfed them for 13 months each) and was diagnosed throught routine mammo, I agree with the above. There was micromets in my lymph node (0.2mm). My oncologist said if this would have been diagnosed when the lump was palpable it would definitely have been in my lymph system.
It sounds like a money factor to me.</p>
<p>I tend to agree with you. I mean if it isn’t about money than we really ought to be using ultra sound mammography and cscan mammo’s anyway as they are less intrusive and don’t have radiation. We have way better technology to use, but we don’t and have been using traditional mammo’s as the base line for years. That has always had to do with money not what is best in detection. Self exams are very important too. I would also argue that saving 15% is a huge number of people to save and well worth it. </p>
<p>My aunts would not have found out about their cancer had they not had their mammo’s. Both were under fifty. They went in for mammo’s and both came out finding out they had large tumors that were probably cancerous hence they both had mastectomy’s and chemo and are survivors.</p>
<p>We put ourselves through radiation every time we go to the dentist to check for cavities, yet we are concerned with the small amounts that you get from mammo’s. A cavity won’t kill you but cancer can. Again, if we are so concerned about this then why not use ultra sound and cscans etc…???</p>
<p>Also, we can’t necessarily compare to other country’s as we may have environmental factors that affect our rate of cancers. I/e in Europe they may not be exposed to certain things that we are , thus making our cancer rates higher. Many scientist believe there are huge environmental factors in cancer in the US.</p>
<p>It’s just silly to think that this panel gives a hoot about the money spent on mammograms. They have zero financial interest in reducing the number of mammograms. I posted an excerpt from the panel in 1996 that indicated they felt the same way back then ( the panel members were not the same) - they just didn’t have the needed number of studies to go that extra step and make it a recommendation. They could well think that all the money spent on getting mammography machines on every street corner and in mobile units is a distraction to real research that could wipe the disease out completely. As long as the health care industry and big pharma is making a gazillion dollars screening and treating, then why worry about curing? We certainly know how the American Cancer Society would fare if cancer were cured. </p>
<p>Also, whoever wrote that for the American Cancer Society, lacks basic reading comprehension skills, but that seems to be rampant these days.</p>
<p>“We put ourselves through radiation every time we go to the dentist to check for cavities, yet we are concerned with the small amounts that you get from mammo’s. A cavity won’t kill you but cancer can.”</p>
<p>People may not be worried about the dental X-rays, but that doesn’t mean the danger isn’t there. You shouldn’t be getting X-rays every time you go to the dentist. If you’re getting those X rays every 6 months for decades on end, your chance of a head-neck cancer is indeed going up.</p>
<p>Hanna,
My point is that if we are so concerned with mammo’s and radiation, then we should use the superior test anyway which is ultra sounds and cscans not mammography with traditional xray. i agree that we should limit our exposure to radiation. </p>
<p>Money has always been involved with women and breast cancer screening. They have known for years that ultra sound is far superior in not only detecting, but is also painless and can lead to less biopsies that are may not be necessary as ultrasound can also sometimes tell if someone has a cyst vs tumor.</p>
<p>I also agree with you that we need to focus on cure too. And, I have always found it suspicious that we are not finding cures to all these cancers and diseases etc…Strange how many, many years ago when there was basically no technology, that someone could come up with an immunization for something like polio, and yet with all the technology we have you never hear of cures to anything. I don’t mean to sound cynical, but…</p>
<p>d’smom–polio is a single disease with a single cause and, as it turns out, a relatively straightforward vaccine (unlike the wily HIV virus.)</p>
<p>Cancer is many diseases with multiple cause factors, and even breast cancer is not the same in every person (depending on your genome, as I understand it, which admittedly is not very well.) We are just beginning to discover how some of the drugs used to fight it work differently in different people.</p>
<p>I hope someday soon our current efforts (especially surgery) will seem primitive and laughable.</p>
<p>Of course I know that. My point was that the technology they had back then was very limited to say the least. I just find it interesting that with all we have now in the way of money, research, technology etc…that we still haven’t progressed to find cures to really anything. But, ironically or not, they keep coming out with drug after drug after drug to put the band aide on things. Huge money in that eh?</p>
<p>We moved to a new town in 1992. It made it necessary to find a new OBGYN. He said, “Well, 37 is pretty close to 40, why don’t you go and get a baseline for the future?” So I did. The tumor that they found was so big, and so soft, that I could have been self-examining forever and never felt it. No family history, nothing! In a week’s time, I had a mastectomy, followed by extra chemo, extra extra radiation, years of Tamoxifan, and I am still here. I shudder to think about the consequences of waiting until even 40. I would be so dead. At the time, I had a 7- and a 3-year old.</p>
<p>That being said, I think about the insurance companies who will do anything to deny payments for anything they can (and I worked for one for years), and then there’s the lobby for the multi-billion dollar cancer industry upon which the US economy stands. Who knows what to do?</p>