[AlaskaAngel]

Even people who work daily with patients who have breast cancer and who themselves have the recommended periodic mammograms are often surprised to find out they have cancer when they are personally diagnosed. When people have routinely had testing done that comes back "all clear" it is awful to find out that the types of testing that is done does not always find the cancer even when sometimes it is there.

Mammograms primarily show a few characteristics, such as variations in calcifications. Some calcification shapes and sizes as well as the density of the calcifications indicate that cancer is more likely than other calcification shapes, sizes and grouping.

Ultrasounds distinguish between fluid-filled areas and solid spaces, with solid spaces being more likely to be cancerous.

That is why often both are done before doing a biopsy to bring out tissue that is then analyzed outside the body for cancer.

These tests are not 100% perfect every time. With mammograms, if the breasts are especially dense, sometimes calcifications are indistinguishable from the dense breast tissue, or "invisible".

In the last decade there has been greater recognition that other types of monitoring may be needed as well for patients who have especially dense breasts.

I personally wonder why there hasn't been more interest in routinely ordering something like a CA 15-3 or CA 27.29 for the patients who have dense breasts, especially for those who are considered to have higher risk factors for breast cancer to begin with. To me that would make a LOT more sense than just relying on an annual mammogram. The CA 15-3 and CA 27.29 is not a perfect test either. But at least they would have one more possible indicator to help in their decision-making process.

AlaskaAngel