early Christmas present--10 yr overall & bc specific survival results just published!

[Jean]

There are so many more factors to consider.
*did the patient take Hormone therapy.
*Age
*Did the patient take birth control pills
*To get an accurate reading you need a high quality image and an experienced tech who can read the image. Experience matters.
*Susan G. Komad sites states 78% of breast cancer are correctly identified
* Susan G. Koman sties that 83% of breast cancers are correctly identified for women over 50 years of age.
* Dense Breasts
*Family History
*Race
*Proliferation lesions without atypical increase risk 1½ to 2 times normal. Proliferation lesions with atypical (i.e., ADH, ALH) increase a woman's risk by 3½ to 5 times.
*Reproductive history
*Radiation therapy to the chest when young:
*Weight
*Alcohol
*Physical activity
*Diet
*Breastfeeding

There are many factors that have to addressed when making decisions. It is extremely complex, not jut one issue.

When the journal was published that Debbie posted I would like to know if they categorized all these factors.

I cannot discount the value of the mammogram exam.
I believe it is a choice of health care and to say not to have it is a strong statement. I think as women we should take into account all the health issues the individual person is facing.


We live in a radioactive world - humans always have. Radiation is part of our natural environment. (not satisfied with that but it is the truth) We are exposed to radiation from materials in the earth itself, from naturally occurring radon in the air, from outer space, and from inside our own bodies (as a result of the food and water we consume). This radiation is measured in units called millirems (mrems).
The average dose per person from all sources is about 620 mrems per year.

Mamorgrams is 42 Mrem. (that number is from the American Nuclear Society.)

Probably the best way to decide when you should begin having mammograms is to discuss your personal risk factors for breast cancer with your physician.

[Debbie L.]

Jean, I haven't had time to read the whole study, but it's here: Canadian mammography study . Near as I can tell, the two groups were matched, meaning similar ages, history, etc. One of inclusion criteria was that they not have had a mammogram in the previous 12 months. I understand your point(s) about risk factors, but if both control and experimental groups were matched -- there would be similar risk factors (or not) on both sides, right?

This is not the only study that found no survival benefit to mammography. The ones that have found benefit have found quite a small one -- not nearly as much as what most people believe.

There is a difference between benefit of mammography and known prognostics about stage and survival.

I have read in the press about women who choose not to get mammograms, with their reasoning. But I have not heard any organization, nor anyone on this list (including me) say that women should not get mammograms. It's what we have, but alas -- it's not a very good tool. Its benefit has been hugely oversold, and its harms are not often mentioned. Women should be told the truth about both the possible benefits and the possible harms, and encouraged to make their own decision.