Category Archives: mammograms
The last time I had a mammogram, it was in October of 2015. I was ambivalent about whether I would go two years or one year, as there is a debate going on about that. October is the traditional month for breast cancer awareness, and when I happened to have my last screening, but I waited until things thawed out and went for my mammo on a pretty spring day.
I didn’t want to go. I had to go all the way into New York City, which takes a long time, and I did not feel like it that day. There were other things I really wanted to do. But I went, and I plan to do this every April now. In part, the wonderful thing about April is the pretty tulips, and flower gardens, all over the city!
The fight between one and two years for mammo frequency may not be very significant. We all wait too long for tests sometimes. We push off appointments. Life is busy. There are false positives and we try to avoid those too. And I’ve known women who had perfect mammograms but discovered breast cancer on their own. There are always those stories. And the minimizing of the radiation is a logical reason to wait. But you know what really turned it around for me? My doctor suggested that the motivation behind the new two year recommendation is economic. As a sociology major who studied economic theory, I think he makes a good point.
So who saves money if I go two years? The insurance companies, not me. Mammograms on most insurance plans are free as long as it is the current preventative care recommendation. Think about it. A trend toward reduced care likely hurts the consumer. The new concept threatens to take something away, not add anything of value.
The idea resonated, so despite the radiation issues, I am just going to do it, until research changes that. There are good points on either side of the issue, but I have to make a choice, even if it is just to stop thinking about it for now!
Later in the day –not anywhere near the hospital–I met a woman and mentioned that I went to the city for a mammogram. She said “good for you” and went on to tell me that she is a breast cancer survivor. That synchronicity was another thumbs up to do this again, same time next year!
Some charities simply take things too far. Perhaps the most annoying is the Keep a Breast Foundation’s boobie campaign. Sigh. I hate to come down hard on these creative, well-meaning people who strive to educate and stop breast cancer in its tracks, but I have to say, I am appalled that this female body part is referenced by such an obnoxious term, and I am not the only one who feels this way. In fact, a school district attempted to ban the I Love Boobies bracelet, and others have blogged about the offensive nature of this organization’s focus.
It is also important to note that the pink campaigns exclude men, and men get breast cancer too. This accentuates the fact that the boobie campaign targets women in a sexist manner by exploiting a feature with which the western world is clearly obsessed: women’s breasts.
This unnecessary focus inspired a porn business to take advantage of the trend by holding a boobie campaign of its own. The business sold sexy photos for breast cancer research, but when the pornographers tried to donate the money they raised, Susan G. Komen for the Cure refused to take it. Bravo!
Still, many people are on board with the idea that if it is for charity, anything goes, but I don’t like ice buckets and boobies shoved in my face. You may think it is not a big deal. After all, if a marketing campaign is in support of a good cause, can that lead to harm? I think it can.
Not only is the focus offensive, it misses the point. The goal is optimal health and wellness, not to hang on to a body part at all costs. And breast self-exam –something these organizations are presumably promoting– has come into question as being more harmful than valuable. That feeling your breasts is a simple way to prevent cancer might send the wrong message. Nothing about cancer prevention is simple. It is replete with controversy, choices, and research, and people ought to be more thoughtful about these things.
I do believe that the people behind the campaign are sincere, and I support charitable giving, but I think in a good society we can do better than to cater to the lowest common denominator. The campaigns might appeal to the JackAss fan, but is that truly the target audience? Not only do the boobie and tata campaigns not serve the organizations well, they are an affront to all women who have had mastectomies. These “genius” campaigns offend the very women the organizations claim they are trying to help.
Unfortunately, we live in a world where TMZ is mainstream, and it is okay to degrade and mock other people. In fact, it’s sport in America, and it makes money, but I think it takes a certain kind of moxie to do it when women’s lives are at stake. Yes, I believe a line was crossed here, and ignorance is no excuse.
I can’t believe it is over a year since I posted. I had my mammogram last week, and going to an excellent facility really makes the process easier. When I arrived, I requested that my x-rays be read while I wait, since I have to travel to get to this better than average women’s center. They were more than happy to oblige, and I only had to wait five minutes while one of the three radiologists read them. So I left without the fear of a callback. Once you’ve had callback, you know that getting a routine screening leaves you a bit uneasy until you get the letter saying that everything is okay.
Also, I was asked if I wanted a 3D mammo and while I have not researched this extensively, I did read that it emits more radiation. The radiation in the standard mammogram troubles me, so I told the technician I will stick with the regular one.
I have not done any additional research on the value of mammography other than to discuss it with my doctor. Although I have concerns about this path, I have not yet been able to find a better solution to the problem of this screening. I just don’t want to take a chance and skip it when all the leading physicians and organizations are in agreement on this one thing. Does it cause unnecessary biopsies and does it fail to catch fast growing cancers? Yes, on both counts. But again, there is no perfect screening and right now, this is the only thing acceptable to my doctors so I will stick with it, but I am certainly open to other ideas.
One thing that might help is to go two years instead of one, according to new research. This way, there will be a reduced amount of radiation, but the routine stays in tact. I did wait 15 months–not 12–to get mine. I generally do push the limits for many screens, knowing that guidelines are probably more stringent than they need to be. That annual breast cancer screening is still the norm is suggested by the fact that the technician mentioned my tardiness and asked if I had trouble getting an appointment. I just told her no. Anyway, I am glad that’s over and I will probably do it again in another 12 or 15 or 24 months.
I just had my mammogram a few weeks ago and the results were fine. Whew! When you get the films taken, you just never know what to expect, so it is a good feeling not to have a callback!
I was recently going through some old papers and came across an article by Shannon Brownlee who wrote a”What’s wrong with Cancer Tests?” The article was printed in Reader’s Digest in April of 2009. In the article, there is a nifty little side bar that includes the suggestion that screening for cancer might be right if there is a family history, if you have a risky mutation, or if you already had cancer. Yet, she suggests thinking twice if you are under 50 or over 70, if you’re frail, and if you are afraid of being harmed by a treatment you don’t need. Most people would fit into the “think twice” category, and people who already know they are at risk would probably be best off screening. I also found a short YouTube video of Shannon Brownlee speaking about Cancer testing. Her approach is well-reasoned. I think we all have to think hard about whether we want to be tested, the risks of being tested, and the risks of not being tested.
This blog that focuses on DCIS is about the choices we have to make when presented with questionable mammogram results, and it also delves into making general screening decisions. During my recent screening for example, the technician took two extra films because they were not perfect and she prefers to do extras rather than take a chance of a callback because the doctor is not sure. So right there, there is more radiation exposure just to avoid the potential of a new set of films.
I guess my strategy now is a bit passive-agressive: get the mammogram but delay it as much as my comfort allows.
And I think for many of us–myself included–we only have so much time in the day to explore these things. When it comes to critical decisions, we do the research, but when it comes to screening, we tend to rely on the judgment of our health care professionals and kind of what everyone else is doing. My experience with just following the rules did lead me to a point where I had to do the research, and that was the inspiration for this blog.
I will continue to update my story and add news about DCIS and breast cancer where I find it. In the mean time, don’t hesitate to pose a question. I would be happy to research and write about any relevant tangents. I hope that in some way I have helped people looking for information as they make incredibly difficult choices when exploring their options regarding breast health.
So I had my mammogram in December. I meant to report this right after I had the exam and now it is March! I am barely blogging with the exception of Everythingnoetic.com, a blog I co-author. (If you are interested in my other projects you can find out by visiting the blog).
What I really liked about the visit is the fact that the mammogram and physician visit was done on the same day. I would highly recommend going to a facility where there is no waiting involved. Facilities that do it all in one day are wonderful and I will continue to go this route.
I will also continue to provide sporadic updates. Obviously, my focus is elsewhere because everything was ok, but I have not forgotten about this blog. Although there is very little interaction, I can tell you that for a blog that is inactive, I continue to get a lot of hits. I really like being able to facilitate the dissemination of information that is so hard to find. Please feel free to comment if you would like me to look into any topic about breast cancer and I will do my best to make time for it. Blessings to anyone who finds themselves here struggling with issues concerning breast health.
Finally, this week, two things came up directly pertaining to breast cancer and I found myself talking about this blog. Yesterday, I went to the Mind-Body-Spirit Expo in NJ and met people from a thermography center. At the booth, they handed out some literature on breast thermography and here is a link to a site with more information on the process. I also posted several links on the page titled LINKS for anyone wanting more information on going the thermography route in NJ. The other thing that came up is that I heard about a book on breast cancer I wanted to check out. If it turns out to be enlightening, I will blog about that next time.
If anyone is using thermography in place of mammograms or in conjunction with them, I’d love to hear what you think about breast cancer screenings!
I just heard the breast cancer story related to the risk that certain women face. Perhaps the majority of women are not affected by this news story, but it should cause us to take notice. Are our annual mammograms really necessary?
That mammograms can be dangerous is something that many professionals have overlooked. This blog is above all about caution and making decisions based on the evidence and not fear. Mammograms do come with risks so when you embrace the mammo as something you ought to do to be labeled a good girl, realize that mammograms are not as safe as doctors claim. We remember DES. Trusting everything the medical community says without research and inquiry is not prudent. You have seen on this blog links to information from many doctors that do not support the mainstream. For example, some doctors recommend thermography instead, and I blogged about that before here.
In my last post, I reported that my next mammo would be in September, which is now, but I found out I am not really “due” until November as I did have one right before my surgery. For someone who has no additional risk of breast cancer, I have had a great deal of mammograms and a breast surgery during the past year, just to be sure. Again, I will accept the radiation in November as I chose to go the conventional route for reasons I explain in this post, but after the follow up visit with the breast surgeon, I will rethink the annual mammogram again. I had a reprieve from decision-making this past year because I had a normal biopsy, but now the routine process begins again.
The new research that questions the safety of the mammogram is alarming. It means that perhaps the radiation has done more harm than good for a select group of women. We really need to be more careful with this type of routine screening. So, are mammograms safe? No, they aren’t. Of course, once again, ignoring the issue is not safe either. Mammograms have saved lives. We need to make decisions individually based on the best information out there. While we should never listen to the conventional advice blindly, that does not mean we should stick our heads in the sand.
In my last post–which was about five months ago–I announced the Annex, a paper.li experiment that I took down today. I found it rather tedious and not very helpful, but I just wanted to provide an update on that.
I have not written much because frankly, there is nothing to personally report and there is nothing on the breast cancer front that has caught my attention. Right now, I am focusing much of my energy on another project and you can find out about that here: Everything Noetic.
I am interested in maintaining this blog because I still get quite a few hits and people use the links, and I feel I am helping by doing nothing more than keeping this alive. However, if anyone has suggestions, or can offer valuable links on DCIS, I would truly appreciate your sharing them.
A quick update on my breast surgery: the healing took longer than I anticipated. I was surprised to learn that the lumpiness after surgery would take months to subside, not days or weeks. My next mammogram should be around September so I will certainly update then. Until then, or until there is something relevent to blog about, I wish everyone a good summer and lots of luck with whatever medical issues you are now facing.
When I was at the my surgeon’s office, I picked up an NAPBC leaflet describing the benefits of NAPBC accreditation. NAPBC stands for the National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers. What it means is that a center that is accredited has gone through a rigorous process to assure that their standards meet or exceed what several prestigious industry organizations demand.
While a center that is not accredited may be doing an excellent job, the centers that are accredited have a stamp of approval, so if you are deciding between Center A and Center B, you might want to vie for the one that has accreditation.
To find out if your breast center is accredited by NAPBC, check their map of facilities in the United States.
When I cracked my eggs one morning last month I noticed they were stamped with pink ribbons (really), and then I caught part of the Giants game that was adorned with pink ribbons, and I thought, is there any industry that does not get on the pink ribbon bandwagon? I mean, we are aware. I think we are very aware already, and it seems silly that the Giants were wearing pink socks that day.
So what does being aware really do? We are aware of the mammography guidelines, but we aren’t aware of a lot of things, which is why there are unnecessary biopsies and unnecessary surgeries, and why there are women who do not have the treatment they need in time. So we need to be aware of our choices and what we should be doing, but not that breast cancer exists. We know about breast cancer, but we don’t really know our options.
There are two sides to this issue: one is that there is hysteria, hyperawareness, a lack of real knowledge on the subject and overtreatment, but then there is the other side. What if we really are catching it early?
Here is what I have concluded after researching the various methods of tracking microcalcifications: there is no way to know if an aggressive form of DCIS lurks without biopsy. Although the chances of having an aggressive form of DCIS is miniscule when going by the percentages, a surgical biopsy can eliminate that “what if” entirely. On some level, it seems like overkill because no one will ever know if the bits of tissue would have gone on to become a cancer, but there really aren’t any protocols in place to watch and wait.
Those who call for active surveillance have not come up with a proper method. Thermography could be a good way to montior breasts, but it is still rather controversial, and I think more research is needed–or at least more round table discussions so that all the experts can hash it out. Dr. Susan Love’s website says that microcalcifications can only be seen by mammogram. If that is the case, then following them with thermography that monitors breast changes may not see a cancer until it has gotten too big. At least, that is Dr. Love’s conclusion.
I can see why there is controversy. Some doctors see thermography as a way to monitor breast health, claiming that it can detect breast cancers years before they arise, while other doctors claim that only mammogram can detect these early cancers. I don’t know the truth. In everything I have read, I can’t figure which side is correct. The conventional doctors claim that thermography has never been proven to find cancer early, while supporters say not only can thermography find early IBC, but it is much safer than the mammograms that can actually cause DCIS to spread. Following up with mammograms is really the only option aside from biopsy, but most doctors will not condone that with a BIRADS 4 rating anyway. Plus, it’s not a great solution.
I have read that the aggressive type of DCIS can grow quickly. When doctors tell us not to wait six months, I’m thinking, maybe they know something I don’t. DCIS can change at any time, and we can’t be screened daily, weekly, or even monthly. Living with DCIS is kind of the same risk as keeping all your money in a 401K when you are very close to retirement. You just don’t know when the market will crash. You just don’t know when a noninvasive cancer will become invasive. Not finding it by not looking for it is one solution by I think we don’t yet have the data to support that position.
In the end, the decision comes down to risk and it is a valid argument that we can live with the risk, but if the risk of biopsy is not great, why not eliminate the cancer risk completely?
Now, there are risks associated with biopsy too, and pain, and time off from work, and those are things that are important to keep in mind. If there is only a slight risk that you might have DCIS, and there is a slight risk of needle track seeding with the stereotactic biopsy, why even bother? It is a valid question. With microcalcifications, some of those types of biopsies fail and plus, you have the risk of actually spreading a cancer, so why do something that can actually harm your body?
That is why I see surgical biopsy as a good option. (Here is a wonderful page that goes through all biopsy options and provides a thorough explanation. This is from a site written by a nurse and survivor).
As far as the DCIS controversy is concerned, I don’t know if they are catching a cancer early, or they are doing too many biopsies. It is one or the other, or maybe something in between. I do know that there is controversy and confusion, but we still have decisions to make. I do think we can agree that we are aware, aware of breast cancer, and aware of some treatments, but there is a lot we don’t know still.
In the end, no test can really discern what the microcalcifications are with the exception of biopsy. And with all the hysteria surrounding breast cancer, it is hard to ignore anything they find. As I have heard a number of critics say, if they find something, they have to biopsy it. So true. But I’m not sure that not looking is the answer. I am hoping current trials on DCIS/suspected DCIS will yield some real results that the mainstream medical community can live with. Until then, we really have very few options.
I listened to Dr. Christiane Northrup‘s Hay House broadcast on October 5th . The subject was breast health. Her guest was thermographer, Dr. Phllip Getson. The discussion centered on breast health in general, but there was a focus on thermography as not only an alternative to mammogram, but also as a way to monitor DCIS!
According to Drs. Northrup and Getson, thermography is a better way to monitor breast changes. It can pick up changes seven to ten years sooner than mammography. It is also very safe. Dr. Getson emphasizes the safety aspect as he explains that it can be performed every day, it can be done on pregnant and lactating women, and children will not be harmed by it. Dr. Northrup adds that many doctors do not recognize the value of thermography. Dr. Northrup has referenced the DCIS controversy in several of her published books, including Women’s Bodies, Women’s Wisdom.
Dr. Northrup did talk about DCIS quite a bit, noting that a study of corpses of women in their forties suggested that 40% of the women studied had DCIS. Yet, these were undiagnosed cases. In other words, when they were alive, the women did not know they had it. Northrup concludes that DCIS is something you die with, and not something you die from. Also reported was a 1995 Lancet study noting that DCIS increased 328% in 12 years, and 200% of the increase was due to the use of mammography.
Dr. Northrup talked about the issue of microcalcifications, and that most doctors feel the need to test them further, often with a biopsy, but that 80% of the time they are benign and goes on to explain further: microcalcifications are present as a result of chronic inflammation in the breast; this is one of the big issues related to mammography; once a doctor finds something, he or she is required to look further; reported data shows that the result of treatment of microcalcifications created more trauma for women; microcalcifications can sit there and be harmless, and you can leave them alone.
Northrup says that DCIS is not harmful. Yet, it must be monitored. Suggested is thermography of the breasts to make sure nothing is growing. If diagnosed DCIS is not generating heat and not changing, it was explained that you can be less aggressive with it. Northrup remarked that many experts believe that DCIS is not a cancer at all, and so many women are being terrified into surgeries that they do not need.
The doctors agreed that DCIS does have to be watched, but it can be watched with the use of thermography. The thermographer looks for inflammation. If there is inflammation,it was explained, then treat the inflammation. Northrup says we have created a nation that is terrified where every single one of us is a sitting duck, but this is a manmade idea. She implores the listener to stop the insanity.
I totally agree. Dr. Northrup has vocalized these sentiments before and where she stands on DCIS is no secret. It is the minority position, but it needs to be heard. Further, much of the information in the broadcast can be corroborated with other sources. While I have heard much of it before–and I even know a bit about thermography, the detailed information provided about the technique and its usefulness in montoring DCIS is something new to me. Thermography in fact can be an avenue that women may take who do not want to be endlessly monitored by mammograms that are potentially harmful and not as accurate. I will certainly do more research on thermography.
Both doctors talked about prevention in the form of supplements to enhance breast health, as well as changes in diet; there was an emphasis on avoidance of sugar. There was a sense that changes in the breasts are not designated to become cancer and lifestyle changes can help to prevent this from happening.
The most important thing I got from this broadcast is that if you are diagnosed with DCIS, you can use thermography as a method of active surveillance. I think there is a lot of wisdom there. First, do no harm, but do follow up. Thermography is not harmful and it provides a lot of information. The only drawback is that while it is an excellent tool, the insurance companies–well, they love the mammogram so they may not pay for the thermogram. It is controversial, but I’ll take something that is completely not harmful over radiation, biopsy, or surgery. Still, I do feel the need to research this controversy further. I am hopeful that thermography or some other alternative will provide help for the millions of women who endure countless mammograms and derive so little information from them.