I do not know the stats for Norway but in the UK, where they only allow for mammograms every three years and only after 50, unless you find a lump younger or are in a high risk catagory, the 5year survival rates are significantly lower there than they are here. 1 in 8 women are dignosed in the US compared to 1 in 9 in the UK but the US has an 85percent survival rate where as the UK only has a 74% survial rate. Leads me to prefer our methods and our system to a large extent.

There are so many variables. Without reading the actual study, it's hard to apply the results easily. For instance, breast cancers in younger women tend to be more aggressive. The study only focused on women 50 - 69. How many of those women died of something else, but might have died from breast cancer if they had lived longer? The best idea for the future is to refine and reduce the cost of testing a tumor for genetic indicators that show how the tumor will respond to different treatment modalities. The more we know about the behavior of tumors, the better we can define who needs chemotherapy, who needs radiation, who needs surgery only and who needs no treatment.

I think a better title for this thread would be Mammograms find tumors that don't need treatment; they don't create the tumors that don't need treatment.

But once found, the tumors wind up being treated anyway. As who wouldn't want to treat diagnosed breast cancer? Even though treament for breast cancer is not without its own serious risks, not to mention fear, stress, unpleasantness, and until we get the Affordable Care Act in place, risk of being excluded from other care because of having a "pre-existing condition."

Unfortunately it's impossible to tell which tumors seen on mammos are ones that need treatment, and which ones if left to their own devices will spontaneously regress and disappear.

For various reasons I have generally spaced my mammograms out longer than the usual "Get One Every Year" exhortation. I have done that for years and was interested awhile ago to read that there was at least some scientific basis to back that up. I get a mammo about every 2.5 years, so. I am 62 and have discussed with my gyn when I can stop both mammogram and Pap smears. She says not right now, but perhaps in a decade, or thereabout. I started mammography at 35 when they first became available but have only had 6 or 7 in the interim. At first annual exams weren't recommended, only every five years or so. Then it changed to the annual recommendation. Now I see that it's recommended to start later, which makes a lot of sense to me, too.

Of course with if I had a family hx, felt a suspicious lump, had a genetic or medical risk profile, I'd get them more often.

OTOH, I know of people who've had years of clean, annual, mammos then discovered a lump two months after their mammo and been dx with breast cancer. And I hear many women say they get a mammogram to prevent breast cancer which, of course, is simply not accurate.

I'm glad we are starting to think more about how much care, treatment, and even, screening is the best mix. IMO, we are overly-fixated on ill health and disease in this country right now. I don't think that's a healthy way to live.

L.

I think a better title for this thread would be Mammograms find tumors that don't need treatment; they don't create the tumors that don't need treatment.

Thank you. That was really not a very well thought out title.

I was surprised that there were breast tumors that would not need treatment. I knew that about prostate cancer but not breast cancer.

1 in 8 women are dignosed in the US compared to 1 in 9 in the UK but the US has an 85percent survival rate where as the UK only has a 74% survial rate. Leads me to prefer our methods and our system to a large extent.

It would be helpful to know the if the 85% "survival rate" actually included those who were treated for tumors that wouldn't have progressed.

My local health care group is now advising annual colonoscopies for those over 50 with no regard to previous clean results or lack of hereditary markers. I can't help thinking that this is overkill and may be profit related.

My wish is to have a comprehensive heath care program in place with emphasis on prevention, care and cost reduction.There's no reason for an MRI to cost $200 in Japan and $2,000 in the States.

I hope that the Supreme Court's ruling will put a damper on the progress we've made so far.

In the study I found the survival rates, there were stats about our uninsured population and they also have only a 75% five year stat and I assume they probally do not go for yearly "mams" due to cost restrictions, so I would have to believe it is our "over cautious" screenings that produce our higher rates of survival. Finding cancer early is the most effective treatment. Yes expensive and not always needed, but it shows results. Remember that the 85% includes the uninsured in its stats so for US's insured the rates are even better. I do not want to lower my odds but do wish we had free yearly screening for all screenable illnesses but yes it seems unfair that some people, just based on their economics, have a better chance to live longer, but our uninsured are not dying at a higher rate of cancers than people in nations that provide everyone with care. I read these stats, by the way, In a British medical journal. It was not from a tea party or US conservative media source. It was part of a piece promoting better national screening in all of Europe.