[alicem]

I missed the statistics that support the recent mammogram recommendations. What percentage of cancers are found because of mammograms given to women in their 40's? 20%? 10%? What person out there wants that person whose life might be saved - but won't be because of the new treatment recommendations - to be someone they love dearly?

The mammogram that saved my life was done when I was 52. However, it had been too many years since my previous one. Perhaps the calcifications might have shown up on a mammogram 3 years earlier when I was 49 and it still might have been just DCIS, stage 0 and the Her2+++ invasive cancer that had to be treated by chemo would never have happened. I blame myself for this, but I had become complacent. My primary care physician had told me in my early 40's that I would NEVER get breast cancer. HAH!!!

Lets fast forward to the next treatment that might fall under the gun for the next round of "cost savings/harm prevention" - - biopsies. When my calcifications were found, I was told not to be worried because in my particular situation, 90% of the time it would turn up nothing. Because 10% of the time it does turn up cancer, it was the recommendation to have a biopsy. I fell in the 10%. It worries me that the same argument could be made for biopsies in my situation. Statistically, calcifications like mine are nothing. Statistically, 90% of the women are put under the "stress" of a biopsy for no reason. Is the cost of these "unnecessary" biopsies for those 90% TOO GREAT??? In my opinion, NO!! If it weren't for this particular standard of care, I would be facing a different outcome entirely. My mammogram found calcifications. My calcifications led to a biopsy. The biopsy led to a lumpectomy. The lumpectomy led to a mastectomy. The mastectomy FOUND MY INVASIVE CANCER before my lymph nodes became involved!! If it weren't for the biopsy, I believe the cancer would have progressed to the point where my odds of survival were greatly reduced. It scares me that in the future, a women with my scenario might face a totally different result - because it was more important to cut costs.