there are safer ways of detecting breast cancer including ultrasound and thermography.

And that's from the daughter of a woman who had a needless mastectomy.

you are not objecting to using some sort of scanning.

I don't want to pry but a "needless mastectomy" is harsh. If something was suspicious, additional scanning should have been done, as well, as a biopsy.

And, of course, today lumpectomy is an alternative. And many observe that not enough women choose this option.

We KNOW that mammograms can and do cause cancer. I had one and that's all I intend to have.

The doctor who did the mastectomy on my mother later told her that the type of cancer she had never spreads. It would never have been found without a mammogram and it should have been left alone. It was contained and would have stayed contained in the milk duct. So, not, it's not harsh and further scanning and a biopsy WERE done.

There are way too many women getting false positives and having unnecessary treatments that are, in and of themselves, hazardous to their health.

If you see value in smashing a woman's breast and radiating it, that's your choice. I don't.

I believe the doctors are doing this in good faith, but just ONE area in which they may be causing overdiagnosis (beyond those situations where the radiation of BRCA gene carriers may make things worse) is with women with dense breasts and connective tissue disease. Connective tissue disease may lead to a lot of calcifications that look like necrosis/DCIS, so too many biopsies are done. In this case, MRI is much better (according to my world-class oncologist). MRI and US may be much better for women with dense breasts in general.

I guess there's the issue of screening in general as leading to overdiagnosis vs the means of screening. I'm not going to get into that debate, but I do think the Komen, et al, push to have annual mammograms needs to be dialed back.

I could not agree more.

The tumor was not palpable as it was too deep in the tissue. I just passed the 4 year date and hope all will be fine and I will be considered cured next year, but without the exams, who know what could have happened.

There is a huge confusion, as often, between averages and the individual cases. Sorry a person is not an average.

and, yes, I agree that a person is not an average. Not a statistics deviation.

I turned 4-0 not too long ago, and they say that's the right time to start.

This is actually about as good as a medical statistical analysis can get. Anecdotal data is not a good counter argument.

Here is a pretty good analysis of the study:
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/02/12/3281871/massive-study-doubts-mammogram-effectiveness/

This is what I have always hated about the statistics used to determine efficacy of treatments. It has to pass a certain threshold. Thus, if only 3% benefit, the treatment will not be approved or further developed. What if you, or a loved one, is in that 3% positive? And this is the only treatment that can actually save your life? And you are still young? (I disagree with using heroic measures to save a 90 years old person...)

Also, I've read that the radiation equipment used is now almost obsolete in this country.

But the patients and the doctors know better when something works.

And, do not discounted something that helps only a small percentage of people or "anecdotal evidence."

These are real. Let the patient decide.

a study that observed 90,000 women over 25 years.

from mammograms is someone you loved and encouraged to get mammograms?

(this can be identified at biopsy), then you might have gone through unnecessary treatment. If that's fine with you, great.

But there are risks with both radiation (especially, to the heart) and chemo, that some women would prefer not to go through if they didn't have to.

“The quality of mammograms in the 1980s was atrocious. Over-diagnosis is much less than people think. The study was poorly designed, there is nothing new,” he said. “We are moving in the direction of being more selective and giving higher-risk women mammograms, but we are not giving them up.”

http://www.jpost.com/Health-and-Science/Israeli-experts-dismiss-claim-mammography-screening-doesnt-significantly-save-lives-341394

Science is great that way. Build on what we learn, learn even more.

On edit: ugh, complaining that a long term study contains data on equipment that was in use when the study began is, er, a bit dishonest. Should we conduct long term studies starting off with the equipment that will be in use when the study ends?

It is unclear from the article that they do.

did not yield the same quality of image that existing equipment does. That is a flaw in the data. Obviously it can't be helped that technology will advance. But that doesn't change facts. Pointing out that imaging is better now is relevant. Not dishonest.

There are huge advantages to long term large sample studies - they give very accurate statistical information, far better than any other method for evaluating medical procedures. They do suffer from distortions due to changes in methodology, but that is a given. The complaint that the study incorporates data from older mammography mechanisms without making it clear that the study had to have done that since it spanned 25 years, is a complaint that is less than honest.

It is quite possible that this huge data set can be further analyzed to look at the question of technology changes - or that follow on studies can resolve this issue, but at the moment it is the best data available, even if one doesn't like which way that data points.

Most studies aren't without their flaws. I'm not saying there is no value to long term studies, or even that there is no value to this study. I'm just saying that the point the poster was bringing up about the imagery was a valid one and one that other critics have pointed out. Multiple studies have shown that mammograms have reduced mortality, and the ACA still recommends them. The controversy isn't new, but there hasn't been a paradigm shift either.

Just that they might not save lives when they are routinely given to women under 50 with no particular risk factors.

Sadly, the FDA is causing them to at least temporarily not provide the genetic medical testing. Fortunately I did not have the BRCA genes.

Not to dampen your sigh of relief, but, I've heard about it: not having the BRCA gene does not mean that cancer will not be diagnosed at a later time.

I hope that 23 and me will manage to come back. I think that they can provide a real service, like the one you described. I think that this, again, is a patronizing attitude that the clients may need further genetic counseling. A different topic.

Don't be shy about asking questions. Insist on seeing the films, and have them explained to you. Ask for a copy of the radiologist's report. You are entitled to this.

Keep a folder for the results. Learn the terminology. Do not just rely on the "all clear" postcard you may receive in the mail.

Do a breast self exam every month. That's how I found mine. It was on the mammogram six months earlier, it just didn't get written up.

I learned the lesson a bit late...you are your own best advocate.

I hope that you still caught it at the early stage and that you are now at least in remission.

She had never had a mammogram but found a lump last May.

You and your family must have gone through hell in the last nine months!

I hope that she did not suffer at the end, that her last days were peaceful.

I hope that you and your family are left with memories that you can cherish, from when she was healthy. That some day you will even be able to smile, remembering a special fond event.

I was diagnosed with breast cancer when I was 27. It knows no age, and a mammogram confirmed the diagnosis.

Just do it!

Wishing you many more years of healthy living.

Found by my yearly mammogram, and when my breast surgeon said, "Now, some people don't think this is cancer, but...." I said, "Yeah, yeah, I know - what are we going to do to cure me?"

My DCIS is a fast-growing one. I'm waiting to have my surgery scheduled, and waiting for the results of my genetic testing.

Hope it turns out OK. Just keep on top of it.

And had to have another one...and ouch that thing is really painful, tho that shouldn't stop anyone.

And then they wanted to do an ultrasound. At the second mammogram visit someone told me that they try to see if they can break up a cyst - like one caused by drinking a lot of coffee (guilty) and that was why it was so painful. I don't know if that's true or not, or if I misunderstood.

Anyway, just to say that before someone would do a biopsy, they would probably now do an ultrasound first.

I'm fortunate, in terms of worry, tho, because no women in my family have ever had breast cancer.

but yes, the risks are there once there is a family history.

she had a mammogram, her doctor called her, asked whether she could feel anything. Apparently it was large enough shadow to be felt. The woman did not. So they did schedule an ultrasound, did not see anything, and concluded that there may have been a serious of cysts lined up that created that image.

One hopes that an experienced radiologist would be able to distinguish between a solid tumor and a maybe and would recommend ultrasound.

mammogram at the end of the month

And the 90,000 woman, 25 year study supports them.

they're readily available. Ultrasound is good for some things and not others. Don't know about thermography.

But my sister's life was saved by a mammogram. She had a tumor beneath the nipple, close to the chest. It would have killed her had she waited til it was palpable.

On the other hand, I found my tumor myself six weeks after having a mammogram where "everything was fine". My lump was near the surface.

Our mother died of breast cancer, and my sister's bout was nearly 10 years before mine. My insurance wouldn't pay for the BRCA test because I "didn't have enough first degree relatives who had breast cancer". Somehow I think enough to an insurance company is one more than you have.

I've never found mammograms particularly painful. It helps to have largish breasts and also not to have the mammogram in the week or so before your period.

My sister is a 12 year survivor and it has been three years for me. We're awfully glad to have each other around!

For the "policy makers" this may sound "anecdotal," for you and your sister, this is real people.

I find it hard to accept the insurance company refusal. Can you appeal to a higher level? A mother and a sister - you cannot get any closer than that.

Good luck for both of you.

now I have to go this Friday.

Get a copy of the report.

Ironically, I will never have to have a mammogram again.

I was diagnosed last fall and had surgery last month. A mammogram/ultrasound combination caught it. My surgeon said that it was so tiny, he almost missed it! Biopsy confirmed it and now its dead, Jim.

Wishing you a speedy recovery and remission.