HER2 Support Group Forums - View Single Post

Kaye · 04-08-2007, 06:25 AM

I was one whose cancer was missed by mammogram when I did have a "lump" which was a hardened area which was about 2-finger width's vertically by about an inch and a half in width that didn't show up on the mammogram. Since it was more in my upper chest there is the question as to whether the mammogram went high enough. However, I didn't feel it until AFTER the mammogram. I thought it was, perhaps, tissue damage or a bruise from the compression of the mammogram itself.

I have since read that if an area is cancerous that an injury to it may have some impact on it, and, perhaps even accelerate its growth. IF that IS true, couldn't a mammogram also be possibly detrimental--at least for some types of breast cancers, especially if they are more advanced?

In my case I had 2 earlier mammograms that should have been followed up with one of them about 2+ years before the last supposedly normal one after which I felt the hardened area. Maybe, if that hadn't been mis-read, my breast cancer WOULD HAVE BEEN caught early by a mammogram.

Maybe, mammograms are helpful for catching early breast cancer if they are read correctly, and maybe they are potentially harmful if done on more advanced breast cancers? In my case I had at least 3, possibly 4 (and maybe even 5) different types of breast cancer at time of pathology report. They included: invasive lobular, DCIS, inflammatory (which was described as a separate tumor in the nipple with dermal lymphatic involvement), and possibly Paget (since it stated "Pagetian spread"). In addition the worksheet used by the pathologist also had invasive ductal on it. That sure was a lot going on for someone who had regular mammograms and did regular self-checks.

If one were to evaluate my case, retrospectively or even anecdotally, I wonder if early breast cancer that IS left alone has the propensity to mutate into different types of breast cancer even if untreated? I suppose that my data could also be used retrospectively look at whether early intervention for small areas seen on a mammogram, accurately identified, does or doesn't 'cure' breast cancer.

Irregardless, most recent research suggests that MRI's are more accurate in identifying early breast cancer. Perhaps it would be more cost effective if every woman had an MRI at less frequent intervals than is recommended for mammograms? I wonder what % of women had mammograms that either didn't show their breast cancer or were mis-read?

04-08-2007, 06:25 AM	#14
Kaye Senior Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 52	Also missed and another thought... I was one whose cancer was missed by mammogram when I did have a "lump" which was a hardened area which was about 2-finger width's vertically by about an inch and a half in width that didn't show up on the mammogram. Since it was more in my upper chest there is the question as to whether the mammogram went high enough. However, I didn't feel it until AFTER the mammogram. I thought it was, perhaps, tissue damage or a bruise from the compression of the mammogram itself. I have since read that if an area is cancerous that an injury to it may have some impact on it, and, perhaps even accelerate its growth. IF that IS true, couldn't a mammogram also be possibly detrimental--at least for some types of breast cancers, especially if they are more advanced? In my case I had 2 earlier mammograms that should have been followed up with one of them about 2+ years before the last supposedly normal one after which I felt the hardened area. Maybe, if that hadn't been mis-read, my breast cancer WOULD HAVE BEEN caught early by a mammogram. Maybe, mammograms are helpful for catching early breast cancer if they are read correctly, and maybe they are potentially harmful if done on more advanced breast cancers? In my case I had at least 3, possibly 4 (and maybe even 5) different types of breast cancer at time of pathology report. They included: invasive lobular, DCIS, inflammatory (which was described as a separate tumor in the nipple with dermal lymphatic involvement), and possibly Paget (since it stated "Pagetian spread"). In addition the worksheet used by the pathologist also had invasive ductal on it. That sure was a lot going on for someone who had regular mammograms and did regular self-checks. If one were to evaluate my case, retrospectively or even anecdotally, I wonder if early breast cancer that IS left alone has the propensity to mutate into different types of breast cancer even if untreated? I suppose that my data could also be used retrospectively look at whether early intervention for small areas seen on a mammogram, accurately identified, does or doesn't 'cure' breast cancer. Irregardless, most recent research suggests that MRI's are more accurate in identifying early breast cancer. Perhaps it would be more cost effective if every woman had an MRI at less frequent intervals than is recommended for mammograms? I wonder what % of women had mammograms that either didn't show their breast cancer or were mis-read?