[AlaskaAngel]

Hi Tricia,

I had one mammo around I think age 38 that was clear, and didn't have any more until age 49 (by choice), and that one was where the originally 0.6 mm lump was picked up (although diagnosed late at 1.01 cm and then 1.06 cm). So, a mammogram did actually pick up mine too. (The problem I had was that the radiologists picked it up and they repeatedly recommended biopsy, but the idiot surgeon failed to do so until it was well over 1 cm.)

But the poll indicates that most HER2 positive bc's aren't being found by mammogram. I don't know if that is because those whose cancers started when they were younger weren't getting any mammos, or whether most had such dense breasts when they were young that they weren't seen by mammos.

My thinking is that if over 70% of HER2 positives aren't being found by mammos but instead by other means, we need to nail down a better strategy. Mammos might work fairly well for most of those with other breast cancers, but it doesn't seem like they are working well for HER2 positives. We don't know which ones are going to BE HER2 positive..... So I'm wondering if maybe they should try doing a clinical trial using both mammos and markers, to see if markers do a better job of finding the HER2 positives sooner. I know I avoided mammos for years myself because of the radiation issue, and that issue is one reason why they aren't generally recommended earlier -- whereas markers only require a blood draw, so more people might actually be seen (and cancer detected) sooner if they could have the blood draw instead.

I'm just speculating.... trying to figure out a better way to catch more of the HER2 positives sooner.

AlaskaAngel