[AlaskaAngel]

Yes. But that discussion primarily refers to the application of the blood testing for metastasis, which can't be compared to mammography because mammography doesn't detect metastasis.

The question is, would offering non-metastatic women the choice of having either 1) annual radiation exposure by mammography, with its false-positive and false-negative rate, or 2) annual breast cancer marker blood testing, with its false-positive and false-negative rate, (with follow up mammography and ultrasound for positive marker results, for further analysis) end up producing more helpful results and far less use of radiation?

Given that breast cancer marker blood testing is far, far less expensive (even with follow up mammography and ultrasound for those who have positive blood testing results), it might even be possible to offer twice-a-year blood testing, which could be superior to annual mammography.

A.A.