Report Raises Questions About The Value Of Mammograms

Post by **tex** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 8:36 pm

When analyzed statistically, the results of these screening tests leaves a lot to be desired.

The reviewers estimated that for every 2,000 women who are invited to get mammograms for 10 years, one woman's life will be prolonged as a result of detecting and treating a potentially lethal cancer.

However, another 10 healthy women will be transformed into cancer patients and undergo treatment needlessly.

An additional 200 will have the anxiety-inducing experience of a false positive -- being told about a suspicious finding on a mammogram that further testing reveals to be noncancerous.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 150522.htm

Tex

starfire · Post by **starfire** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 7:22 am

Man, that sure makes a person want to run right outside and scream.

The doctors I have had prior to the one here let me get away with 1 about every 2 years. I've got a feeling this one is going to push hard for 1 every year. Maybe I'll have to change docs.

Glad you posted that.

Love, Shirley

kate_ce1995 · Post by **kate_ce1995** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 8:25 am

However, another 10 healthy women will be transformed into cancer patients and undergo treatment needlessly.

Hmm, but would these 10 have become ill had they not had early detection? I don't quite get this statement (maybe its better explained in the full article that I don't have time to read right now).

I will say, that an astute doctor and self exams are probably at least as important, if not more so, than the mammogram depending on your breast structure. I keep going back to my Mom's experience, but her doc picked up on something that didn't look right (a concavity) and sent her for a biopsy. It found, not a lump, but a form of cancer which develops in a flat structure that doesn't present as a lump and therefore can't be seen on the mammogram. Not to mention the fact that she had cystic breasts anyway, so her mammograms were virtually useless. She was luck...it was caught before it spread to her lymp nodes so she had a mastectomy and didn't have to undergo any further treatment. If her doc hadn't been so astute in looking for the changes, she might have had a very different outcome.

I guess until they come up with a better system, we all (us women that is) have to be vigilant about self exams. It may be our best chance of picking something up and getting the treatment we need.

Katy

barbaranoela · Post by **barbaranoela** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 8:41 am

WHOA---thats where I am going today---for the *flattener*

A friend of mine had a PET scan----dont know what the initals stand for but the scanning did the breast in sections!!!! She had a suspicious Mammo so they sent her for this PET~~~~

Oh well, I prefer the 2 year BUT my GYN says NO-WAY--every year-

so off I go--

till later
barbara

starfire · Post by **starfire** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:23 am

If I have been informed correctly, the PET scan is the best way to detect cancer anywhere in the body, but I could be wrong.

Love, Shirley

Post by **tex** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 11:43 am

Shirley,

I suspect you're quite correct.

http://www.petscaninfo.com/

Tex

barbaranoela · Post by **barbaranoela** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 12:05 pm

thank U for Xplanation ----I really was going to Google it---
SWEAR!!!

Barbara----