Wait until 50 for mammograms?

[Chemisse]

NEW YORK - Most women should wait until age 50 to get mammograms and then have one every two years, a government task force said Monday in a major reversal that conflicts with the American Cancer Society's long-standing recommendation of annual screening starting at 40.

Also, the task force said breast self-exams do no good and women shouldn't be taught to do them.

For nearly two decades, the cancer society has been recommending regular mammograms beginning at 40.

But the government panel of doctors and scientists concluded that getting screened for breast cancer so early and so often is harmful, causing too many false alarms and unneeded biopsies without substantially improving women's odds of surviving the disease.

"The benefits are less and the harms are greater when screening starts in the 40s," said Dr. Diana Petitti, vice chair of the panel.

The new guidelines were issued by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, whose stance influences coverage of screening tests by Medicare and many insurance companies. But Susan Pisano, a spokeswoman for America's Health Insurance Plans, an industry group, said insurance coverage isn't likely to change because of the new guidelines.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33973665/ns/health-womens_health/


Ok, I am always eager to find an excuse not to get the mammogram, but somehow I think we are getting scammed here.

[virgogal]

1. I didn't start annual mammograms until my late-fifties,but with

daughters and daughters-in-law in their forties I think it should be the forties.

I tend to be rather casual about my own health.

[Bitwit1234]

2. This used to be the way it was.

Women were cautioned not to get them til they were in their 50's. It has just been in the last couple of decades they started getting them earlier. I guess according to the doctors the old way was the right way.

If there is suspicion, they can take a sonogram. That is not as bad as the x-ray for the mammogram.

[CTyankee]

12. Yes, I remember that it was at least 50 for your first mammogram back in the day.

That's when I got my first one. I had no breast issues or family history of breast cancer, nor did I fall for the HRT deal (I thought it wasn't natural for me to have periods in my 50s after menopause). Thank goddess for that...

[mzmolly]

3. My Dr. advised to have a baseline done in your late 30's/early 40's for comparison

if there is ever an issue. Something about repeated exposure to radiation makes me question the logic of early, annual mammos. But, I think the advice should differ if you have a family history of course. Also I can't help but think women with larger breasts may not detect lumps as easily? Some studies appear to suggest the same.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2474642/

[MorningGlow]

4. What the hell. Will they PLEASE make up their minds!

When I was in my 30s, I was constantly lectured by my OB/GYN to get a mammogram the very nanosecond I turned 40. I did my due diligence (owww) and then my new OB/GYN said I didn't have to have one every year since there is no history of breast cancer in my family--every two years was fine. And then when I showed up at my screening place, I got lectured by my mammogram lady (the doctor, not the tech) for missing a year and was told that I absolutely, positively had to have my boobs squished every year.

Can we PLEASE get a consensus here? :banghead:

P.S. And what's all this about ultrasounds being better at detecting irregularities in the breasts anyway? Why aren't we doing that instead? Oh, right--because it's painless. (I swear, if men were told they had to have their balls flattened between two glass plates every year, we'd suddenly have all kinds of cutting-edge technology that didn't hurt a bit...)

[enlightenment]

6. Science advances.

I understand that it's confusing, but we don't want it to stand still, do we? I doubt there will ever be consensus, as that suggests that we know all there is to know about it. Until the day comes that they can say - 'we have a 100% cure' I don't believe we will know all there is to know about it.

I watched 'Dr. Nancy' for the very first time today (the one on MSNBC) - I normally don't bother with that sort of thing. Her final comment was about this study. I don't know if there are transcripts of these programs, but you might look to see . . . essentially, she said what I just did (only much more clearly) about science changing and then made the point that it's about figuring out the best methodology while looking at the forest rather than each tree. Paraphrasing - "if 1900 women get mammograms and 1 woman is diagnosed with cancer, what is the worth of the procedure? For the 1 woman, it's well worth the risk of the additional radiation and breast squishing (she didn't say that bit about squishing - but let's face it, breasts weren't designed for that) . . . for the 1899 other women, it may not be worth the risk."

Poorly paraphrased and please find her quote . . . but the point is there. I thought it was very nicely done.

[MorningGlow]

7. I'm not against mammograms

I understand their value. What I'm railing against is the conflicting information, all within the course of a couple of years. It wasn't "Get them" and then "No, wait". It was "Get one every year" / "Don't bother getting one every year" / "Why aren't you getting one every year?!" See what I mean? That's what's :banghead: about it.

[enlightenment]

8. I understand that - sorry my post wasn't clear.

I think part of the problem is that private organizations (like the Susan G. Koman Foundation and others) are so vocal and so positive that there cannot be TOO many checks (self-checks/doctor exams/diagnostics) that it starts to sound like the medical community is completely behind that level of vigilance - and they're not, at least not all of them.

The problem with paradigms is that they're very tough to change - and nowadays they are even more difficult because they are so widely known. They're like bubbles, with all the scientists working away on the inside. When ideas start to change within that bubble, three things happen - other scientists resist accepting the validity of the new idea; the bubble resists allowing that new idea to circulate outside the closed scientific community; and the public gets confused, because they're seeing the process of change in action, since the bubble is transparent.

Or something like that!

[blindersoff]

5. 9 year breast cancer survivor

I started my mammograms at age 40 and all went well until age 49, when first I found a small lump and then a followup mammogram was done. Turned out to be stage 2 breast cancer. If I hadn't had the mammograms and done breast self exams regularly (which is also up for discussion about whether they are important or not), I would probably be dead by now! I am willing to have a necessary followup procedure done even if I am "traumatized" by the wait for a negative result. This is just ridiculous, in my opinion.

[astral]

9. I am interested in doing infrared mammography instead

http://infraredmedicalsolutions.com/patients/is_infrared_right_for_you

why would any woman want to get a mammogram if this alternative is there? I am not sure how available it is yet.

[LeftishBrit]

10. In the UK they start at 50 unless you're in a special risk group

As I understand, mammographs are less reliable in younger women due to greater breast density, and that is one reason why some doctors recommend a later start.

I know it's been a big area for debate in medical science for many years.

[newfie11]

11. Breast cancer in a premenopausal woman is more difficult

edit for spelling


to treat. Ask anyone working in cancer. The breast cancer in a premenopausal woman generally is more aggressive and faster growing. Years ago the American Cancer Society considered changing their suggestions for mammograms to every year on a 40-to 50 age group and every other year after. That was never followed through. Any woman taking HRT should be getting yearly mammograms.

Breast ultrasound only shows masses, not all cancers develop as a mass at first. It can show up as calcifications or even irregular shape tissue but not seen as a mass on ultrasound. Breast cancer leave calcifications as it spreads. Mammography show that but usually ultrasound does not. Not all younger women have dense breast and not all menopausal women have fatty breasts. It depends on each woman. Digital mammography is a big help in reading dense breast tissue as is MRI of the breast.

Using the thermography technique was tried many years ago and failed miserably. Maybe it has improved by now. I have no personal knowledge of it. I did find this link on it:
http://bcaction.org/index.php?page=newsletter-60a