Mine would not have been found so early without one,had them faithfully for many years and IN 2003 a very small cancer was detected , I then had an ultra sound, and biopsy to confirm it was a cancer, and two weeks later had surgery. I have them every year since I am a strong believer in them. Each person must decide whats best for them.I walk in a cancer relay as a survivor with many other breast cancer survivors and we are all grateful we had our mammogram check ups and thankful for each day we are alive.

I will continue to get a mammo every year - I think they are a viable means of catching abnormalities in the breast tissue. It costs me $187/year for peace of mind - I think it's money well spent.

I will continue getting them every year. It costs me nothing and for peace of mind, I'll still go annually.

Teddy, thanks for sharing that. So happy you had a good outcome.

I've always gotten them and will continue. My mother had BC at age 70.

All of the doctors they have interviewed and there have been many on all the tv shows and news programs are dismissing the study due to the way it was done and the fact that the machines used were the very old type and not the much more accurate kind they use today. They all advised to continue as you were and discuss it with your personal doctor for his opinion.
Machines have really improved greatly in their technology in just a few years and I agree that should definitely play a part in the outcome.
I will continue to make my decisions based on my health and my doctor's recommendations.

edit to say, it was a mammogram that found my lump and led to surgery for me so I appreciated that mammogram technology!

This post was edited by ravencajun on Thu, Feb 13, 14 at 12:52

I think everyone should discuss with their doctor and make the best decision for them. I will continue having mammograms even though I'm not 50. The guidelines used to say start at 50. My mother's cancer was detected at 50. I remain convinced that if screening had started earlier then, hers would have been discovered earlier. She was not one of the lucky ones; she battled cancer for 10 years before passing away from it.

I have a coworker in her early 40's who had a routine mammogram last year and cancer was found. It was too small too feel in a physical exam. It was caught very early and her lymph nodes were clear. I shudder to think what her situation might have been had it not been caught so early.

It's hard to quarrel with a study without reading the study, but I do get frustrated when the key data point is death. There are others benefits to early detection as other posters have mentioned, like less invasive and extreme treatments. Quality of life never seems to be discussed when we see the publicized results of these types of studies, only quantity of life. Twenty-two percent found cancers that would have never harmed them? What the h*ll is a cancer that doesn't harm you?

I will continue having them - although in Ontario, Canada, they are only covered every 2 years (unless the radiologist sees something iffy as in denseness and then you will be called back in a year). My husband was yapping and I mean yapping about this study last night - of course supporting it. I suggested they do a similar study on diseases that affect primarily men - so of course the changed the subject...

I get very annoyed with woman who do not have pap smears or mammograms because they have been told they hurt. Well they do, but cancer hurts a lot more. And once such women are diagnosed with cervical or breast cancer it is not their fault - but the fault of everyone else. I can tell you that if I did not follow my doctor's recommendations re these tests I would be looking for a new doctor and a new doctor is not easy to find in Ontario.

I thought that was an interesting finding, that 22 percent of the women screened got diagnosed with cancers that would never have harmed them. The article went on to say:

In 2012, another study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, found that as many as a third of cancers detected through routine mammograms may not be life-threatening. They said 1 million women may have been overdiagnosed, which means they were needlessly treated, not to mention emotionally distressed.

This sounds very much like the situation with prostate cancer. Some of those cancers are so slow growing that the patient is far more likely to die of somthing else. I can remember years ago reading the advice that men should not even get tested for prostate cancer until a certain age because a positive result would worry them needlessly.

Many of these studies mention the anxiety that women feel when they have a false positive. I've been through that anxiety more than once. In my case, it wasn't the mammograms that gave a false positive. One was a lump found by me during self exam, the other was one found by a doctor during my physical. I'd rather go through the anxiety of follow up tests and have any cancer caught as early as possible.

I have never had a mammogram that hurt or a pap smear. I do not have breast cancer in my family but I usually get a mammogram once a year or so. I am 79.

Sue

This is another questionable-science test that has been oversold. IMO many people do not need to have this test routinely unless they have had cancer or have a family history of it.

Yes, new machines DO detect more. They find even more insignificant anomalies. There are even more unnecessary, painful, frightening surgeries that benefit solely the bottom lines at hospitals and help doctors defend against potential lawsuits.

Not every mammography 'find' is a cancer. Not all cancers will develop into anything serious. Our immune systems constantly detect and eliminate dangerous cells from our bodies. Radiologists cannot know by 'looking' which atypical cells WILL NOT become cancers, nor which will be taken care of by the individual's immune system. This is far from *scientific*. It's guesswork.

We'll never know how many women believe 'early detection and drastic treatment' has Saved Their Lives, although their 'cancers' were never going to develop into anything life-threatening, or do so before they died of old age. There is no way to have a 'control group', but now medical science has examined the history. They are questioning the *science* of over-detection and over-treatment.

DH doesn't have the blood test predictive of prostate cancer since he turned 72 -- at his MD's suggestion. He is an unlikely candidate for this cancer and it is extremely unlikely this type of cancer could develop fast enough to kill him before he dies of old age. How many men have suffered needless supposedly 'life saving' surgeries for this?

I have had three surgical breast biopsies and two needle biopsies -- all on very 'iffy' little blips detected by mammograms. All were benign. I am 72 and I am *through* with this. (I will continue to have a manual breast exam every two years.)

Perhaps some women should be treated more like men (who also can develop breast cancer). IF there is a history, keep testing up to a reasonable age.

I'd like to hear proven *science* for routine mammography across the board, for everyone. This study says the scientific proofs are lacking -- and that the tests and the 'cures' have done harm.

I can relate to your position, Chisue. Well said.

chisue, your view is thoughtful and shared by many.

To be fair, I wouldn't call the science "questionable". It may be better to say that the knowledge is still incomplete and not comprehensive.

Cancer is better understood today than 30 years ago, but all aspects of what needs to be known are still not fully explained. Scientific studies are like shots taken in the dark at a target. In time some turn out to have been close to the bullseye, others are found to have missed the target completely. Before the knowledge advances more, one can't tell one from another.

Early detection does not always mean better outcome, but if an annual mammogram gives you peace of mind, go for it.
I agree with Chisue that more proofs are needed. It is my opinion that a giant business infrastructure has surrounded breast cancer, though, and wresting the truth about those profitable tests, referrals, and so on is not going to be easy.
Because of the staggering amount of money involved in these tests, it is almost a given that both sides will line up with experts, write papers, you name it.

So - I am not considered "at risk" because no female relative of mine has ever been diagnosed with breast cancer. If a female relative is diagnosed with breast cancer in the future (tomorrow or whenever), I suddenly change to "at risk" simply because of her new diagnosis.

I was at risk all along, but I never knew it.

This method of identifying who is at risk - and therefore should do the more aggressive mammogram screenings - and those who can scale back per the new guidelines doesn't seem very reliable.

I've had several positive mammograms, which led to several ultrasounds and one biopsy. They all turned up negative. But I don't consider those stressful. What I "would" consider stressful is going through chemo/radiation/surgery as I've seen at least 3 friends do.

Mammograms seem darned good!

Omigosh, Snidely, I agree with you. I really do. :-)

I had surgery many years ago to remove a mass that turned out to be dilated milk ducts. I can't blame a mammogram, though, because I found the lump myself. The mammogram I had after the surgery (several years later) was excruciating, and I stopped them after that. I had excessive radiation exposure in my childhood, teens, and twenties. Enough is enough.

All the responses here are informative and appreciated.

Gladys -- Using your theory everyone is at risk of everything, anything, being hit by a bus. All women cannot reasonably be considered to be at risk of having or dying of breast cancer simply because they have breasts. All men are not considered at risk because they have mammaries...or prostates.

I'm not being screened for bone density or a hundred other things that *might* befall me. I do look both ways before crossing the street.

I have always gotten mamo's,as it didn't cost to have them. No one in family history had BC.so never worried ,about it. That is till Oct. of 2013, when my older sister (79) was found to have it. She is lucky that they did surgery in Dec, and is done with rad.treatments, and is now on pills for 5 years. She also got mamo's just because.

"Omigosh, Snidely, I agree with you. I really do. :-)"

Do you say that for me to believe that you're coming around in your views to agree with me, or the opposite?

I fear the opposite ;-) but seriously I'm sure we have a lot of common ground.

My mother was diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 48 in 1965 after she had found a lump in her left breast. She underwent a radical mastectomy. (This was "back in the day" when radicals were really radical.) Previous to my mother's breast cancer, her older sister (her only sibling) had also lost a breast to cancer. After my mother's surgery, my aunt developed breast cancer in her other breast. My grandmother died of old age, but my great-grandmother died from breast cancer (as did my mother in 1970 and aunt in 1979).

So, I've always had the attitude that it's "when" not "if" I would develop breast cancer. I have had two surgical biopsies (one in each breast), both of which were benign.

When I was in my twenties, I worked for OB/GYNs, and once a month one of the doctors would do a breast exam on me. I would get annual mammograms, too. But, until I had one last year, there'd been a gap of probably 5 years where I didn't bother getting one. I'll probably get one this year, but may wait until next year.

Only 12% of breast cancer is related to the BRCA -1 and BRCA - 2 genes, so having a relative who has been diagnosed with breast cancer is not much of an indicator of your breast cancer risk, especially if the relative was diagnosed at the age of 60+.

Saying that women shouldn't be treated for breast cancer because they will die of something else before the breast cancer impacts their health is a an argument based on statistics, but as you know, an individual's chance cannot be determined although research is improving in that area.

If you had a 50% chance, just to pick a number, of dying before your BC impacted your health, would you choose not to have treatment? I hope that each woman would be allowed to make that decision herself and not have the choice dictated to them by insurance companies based on statistical analysis.

I had read a similar study a couple years ago and haven't had a mammogram since. I am 54 and have had 2 mammograms, I'm sure I will have one every 5 to 10 years or so.. but not yearly. I do see a gynecologist yearly and I do always get a pap smear.

I'm not arguing for or against the study - I'll repeat what others said - be knowledgeable and calculate your own situation.

However I'd like to point out something Chisue said. "IMO many people do not need to have this test routinely unless they have had cancer or have a family history of it. "

That's not the whole story - This is from the American Cancer society:

"Altogether, less than 15% of women with breast cancer have a family member with this disease. This means that most (over 85%) women who get breast cancer do not have a family history of this disease."

So not having a family member with breast cancer is not a valid reason to feel secure or avoid mammograms. We all need to be vigilant and informed. The web site I linked is very helpful.

Here is a link that might be useful: cancer.org

This reminds me I'm due for one. My last was in 2011 and I'm over 60, so time to make an appointment. I also don't have a family history, but I've got Medicare so it's covered.

If I'm not mistaken, many women are now being diagnosed with cancer in old age. If every discovered non-benign cell is called Cancer, and all are treated, we can't answer a lot of questions:

Are these all life-threatening cancers? Are all fast-growing? Would the person's immune system eliminate some of them? Would the person die of natural causes before the cancer caused serious damage? How much damage is done by the false positives and treatments for the 'positives'?

What happened to all the women who did NOT have a cancer discovered (or treated) 'before mammography'? It's an unscientific leap to assume they all died before their time of undiscovered atypical cells in their breasts. I understand the desire to 'get it' before it becomes life limiting, but we don't know which we are seeing or what the outcome would be if it were unseen. Just because we can LOOK! LOOK! shouldn't mean we always need to CUT! CUT!

I'm reminded of the adage of not consulting a surgeon if you don't want surgery. It's what they DO!

Re: Pap testing. What is the rationale for this test for a woman who is not sexually active or who has only one longtime (trustworthy) partner?

Do you say that for me to believe that you're coming around in your views to agree with me, or the opposite?

Views? Plural? As in more than one? I wouldn't go that far, Snidely. :-)

But I did agree with your statement:

Cancer is better understood today than 30 years ago, but all aspects of what needs to be known are still not fully explained.

Interesting point about the Pap tests, Chisue.

I would say HPV is the main rational for pap tests. Almost everyone has had HPV in their lifetime. Nothing protects against it. I suppose the only people who wouldn't be exposed would be those who abstain completely, or those who have only been with one partner who was also a virgin, but that is somewhat rare these days.

Usually the immune system gets rid of active HPV infections and it's not a big deal but sometimes it doesn't. It can also be dormant in the body for years before flaring up, which could be caused by something as simple as a period of high anxiety. My doctor told me that once you have it, you will always have it but it's usually inactive. It's when it triggers and the body doesn't clear it up is when it can turn into cancer if not caught.

So you could be married for 10 years but still have HPV lying dormant from an earlier partner. Married couples also frequently swap it to each other continuously.

A Pap smear can detect cervical cancer and changes in your cervical cells that may increase your risk of cervical cancer in the future. copied from the Mayo Clinic website

How common is cervical cancer? Cervical cancer �" once one of the most common cancers affecting U.S. women �" now ranks 14th in frequency. Because precancerous lesions found by Pap smears can be treated and cured before they develop into cancer, and because cervical cancer is often detected before it becomes advanced, the incidence and death rates for this disease are relatively low. See link below for more info.

Here is a link that might be useful: NIH Fact Sheets: Cervical Cancer