Completely Disgusted with the ACS!!!

snhb

Did anyone else read this part of the article posted on the home page regarding MRI's detecting breast cancer earlier, and say to themselves as I did, that with someone from the American Cancer Society making statements like this it's no wonder that we never seem to make more progress in erradicating BC?

TOO SOON TO RECOMMEND

But Debbie Saslow, director of breast and gynecologic cancer at the American Cancer Society, said it is far too soon to use MRI routinely for breast cancer screening.

"The American Cancer Society recommends that MRI screening be done annually in addition to mammography starting at age 30 for women at high risk," Saslow said in a telephone interview.


Women who already have had breast cancer have only a moderate risk of a recurrence and are not necessarily candidates for MRI, Saslow said. The reason is that MRI is expensive -- $1,000 to $1,500 per scan -- and has a high rate of false positives, meaning it detects lesions that are harmless.
I mean this statement really ticked me off?? Is it just me??

roseg

I read that article and thought the title was misleading. The title made me think MRI's prevented breast cancer, when in actuality they just detect it earlier.

I believe it is too early to recommend this, but that with mammogram reimbursements falling there will be pressure to make MRI's "recommended." This won't necessarily save lives, but it will divert resources to Radiologists.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/04/detecting_cancer_early_part_1_more_compl.php

This is a long titrate about this kind of thing, but it's worth reading, if only to get the explanation about the "Will Rodgers effect" - my apologies to any Californians out there!

Anonymous

It's really funny how health professionals think differently concerning MRIs and bc.

I was listening to Dr. Rosenfeld one Sunday morning. He recommended women who have had breast cancer get an MRI AND very soon. Of course, what does he know? He's a cardiologist. I respect his opinion and I believe if his wife or daughter or friend had had bc they'd be getting their MRI immediately.

I'm not quite sure what my onc thinks about this. When I mentioned getting a mast on the remaining "good" breast she didn't recommend it. She says it rarely goes to the other breast.

My breast is dense. I found my own lump several months after my mammo. I don't trust mammos, but I really don't trust MRIs either.

After I finished neoadjuvant chemo the MRI did NOT pick up the other cancer in a different quadrant of my breast. The onc rad and I spoke about what would be best -- mast of lumpectomy. We knew there WAS another tumor in my breast (believe it showed up on PET/CT scan), but didn't show up on the MRI. Therefore, I chose mastectomy.

snhb

The point that you bring up about whether or not insurance covers MRI is a MAJOR issue regarding performing breast MRI's. Insurance WILL PAY if you have had BC before, so the more of us(survivor's) that get MRI's because insurance will cover them, the more they can study the results of MRI's, the better it will be for future generations.

SandyInNJ63

In my case, mammograms don't seem to pick up a darn thing (digital or otherwise), but having just had a MRI (at my request) after the negative mammo, has left me more confused, as it did pick up something. The tie-breaker ultrasound still can't conclude, without a shadow of a doubt, what I'm dealing with.

I'm just annoyed that 3 tests later, I'm still not getting any clear answers. I only wish that someday, hopefully sooner than later, there is a test that is 99.9% foolproof in detecting possible problems, and in addition, make that test available to all women, regardless of age or risk factor.

Nancy101

I too was very concerned about this, so I asked my oncologist, radiation oncologist, and primary care physician about MRIs vs. mammograms. All three told me that mammorgrams are still the way to go. MRIs tend to show up a lot of false positives, resulting in biopsies, unnecessary surgeries, and the stress of waiting for results. Plus the fact that some insurance companies will not cover the MRI. But I also know that mammograms do not always detect lumps. This is so confusing. I only hope that further studies will clarify which is better.

Member_of_the_Club

My breast center has routinely done MRIs for "high risk" patients for years, and they define high risk very loosely. My bc was not detected by a mammogram or an ultrasound, so I know that if I had presented my lump -- that was dismissed as nothing -- at my current breast center, they would have also done an MRI and it would have been detected earlier.

MRIs don't make sense for all women but goodness for those at high risk a mammogram, with its 10% failure rate just doesn't make sense.

roseg

More from the science blogger about this.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/08/mri_for_the_detection_of_early_breast_ca.php