Mammograms may cause breast cancer

baywatcher

I am 53 years old. My ob/gyn recommended that I have a baseline mammo at age 35 and then yearly after age 40. I had routine mammos and never really questioned it. There is no history of bc in my family. At age 49, a routine mammo showed I had 2 or 3 areas of DCIS in my left breast. A biopsy confirmed grade 3 DCIS. I went to a general surgeon that told me I needed a mastectomy. I had a second opinion from a female breast surgeon and she agreed that I was not a candidate for a lumpectomy. So, I get a mastectomy without recon (my choice). No chemo or radiation needed. Four years pass and I continue with yearly mammos. This year they found a small tumor (less than 1 cm) IDC. I had another mastectomy. Again, no radiation or chemo needed.

I always had a "gut" suspicion that the years of mammos caused my cancer. When my cancer was first discovered and I told my ob/gyn (a guy) that I thought the mammos caused my cancer and he said "mammos have been accused of that". Since my surgery I am reading books on healthy eating. I found a website www.naturalnews.com and was reading articles and there was one about the hazards of mammograms. It basically says that the radiation from mammograms cause cancer. So, I decided to research further and have found numerous articles saying the same thing. Then I asked my female surgeon if she had mammograms every year and she said "no, I'm non compliant". I just found an quote from the 1995 book Preventing Breast Cancer by Dr. John Gofman which came to a stunning conclusion saying "Our estimate is that about three-quarters of the current annual incidence of breast cancer in the USA is caused by earlier ionizing radiation, primarily from medical sources".

As I read this info, it makes me sick to my stomach. I now believe that routine mammograms are causing breast cancer in many of us. Don't get me wrong, if lumps are found and there is a reason to do the mammo, then absolutely do it. But, I don't think it should be done just routinely. 

I have 2 daughters and I will recommend that they do NOT have routine mammograms. Or routine dental xrays either. I am becoming very skeptical of the medical community.  Your thoughts?

sunflower45

Let's add an additional question to this one?    How many of your cancers were found because of a mammogram and how many were found with you or your significant other finding a lump?   I had routine mammograms for years but my cancer ( a very large lump) was found by me.   Do mammograms really find most cancers or do humans find them?   If so,  maybe the mammograms are causing the cancers.

hollyann

The mammograms can't be causing the cancers because they don't emit that much radiation.....Mine was found with MRI because I had dense breast tissue and mammograms can't see thru dense breast tissue........My tumor had been growing fro a minimum of 8 years and I had only had 2 mammograms in my whole life........I was 43 when I was dx with bc...meaning mine had been growing since I was 35 at least...........So I personaaly don't think mammograms cause bc.......

hollyann

PS  I did the MRI because I was high risk....2 sisters and our mother...lost 1 sister and our mother to bc.............

Anonymous

From http://www.imaginis.com/:    

 "Imaginis is an award-winning, comprehensive resource for information on women's health. Within our thousands of physician-edited pages, we explain complicated medical terms in everyday language to help you make informed decisions about your health."

From Imaginis' List of Myths About Breast Cancer:

Myth:  Mammograms Cause Breast Cancer

"A mammogram is a safe procedure that uses extremely low levels of radiation to create detailed images of the breast. Modern mammography systems typically use only about 0.1 to 0.2 rad dose per x-ray (rad is the scientific unit that measures radiation energy dosage). The MQSA (Mammography Quality Standards Act) was created by the American College of Radiology (ACR) and passed by Congress to mandate rigorous guidelines for x-ray safety during mammography. The MQSA guidelines assure that mammography systems are safe and use the lowest dose of radiation possible. Patients should make sure they are being imaged at an ACR accredited facility using modern mammography systems."

For Imaginis' entire list of Myths About Breast Cancer:

http://www.imaginis.com/breasthealth/bc_myths2.asp#mammogram_causes_bc

baywatcher

Holly and Duke-

When I discussed mammography radiation with my surgeon, she said that there is no safe doses of any radiation. She says that mammos do give small doses of radiation but they are not harmless. She also said that although the doses of radiation are small, they are cumulative, meaning that the more mammos that you have over a lifetime, the more rads you have had.

Beesie

A mammogram found my breast cancer.  I will continue to have them every year.  But then I'm high risk and over 50. 

Here's what the National Cancer Institute says about the effectiveness of mammograms:

Several large studies conducted around the world show that breast cancer screening with mammograms reduces the number of deaths from breast cancer for women ages 40 to 69, especially those over age 50. Studies conducted to date have not shown a benefit from regular screening mammograms, or from a baseline screening mammogram (a mammogram used for comparison), in women under age 40.

And here is what the NCI recommends: 

Women age 40 and older should have mammograms every 1 to 2 years.
Women who are at higher than average risk of breast cancer should talk with their health care providers about whether to have mammograms before age 40 and how often to have them.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/detection/screening-mammograms

Here's what the Mayo Clinic says about mammograms:

Mammography exposes you to low-dose radiation. The dosage is very low, though, and for women over age 40 the benefits of regular mammography outweigh the risks posed by this amount of radiation.

And here is their recommendation on mammogram frequency:

Some general guidelines for when to begin screening mammography include:

• If you're age 20 to 39 and at average risk of breast cancer, you don't need screening mammograms yet.
• If you're age 26 to 39 and at high risk of breast cancer, you may benefit by beginning screening mammograms. Talk to your doctor for an individualized program. Your doctor may also recommend magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in combination with mammography based on your risk factors and your degree of breast density.
• If you're age 40 or older, you should have screening mammograms every one to two years, depending on your doctor's recommendation. This is true for women at average risk and at high risk of breast cancer.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/mammogram/MY00303

So the message seems to be that there is a risk but it is very low and for women 40 and older (and certainly 50 and older or those who are high risk), the benefits outweigh the risks. 

pk0199

I probably will not be popular here, but in mammograms and radiation's defense, if you are worried about radiation causing cancer, then please do not go outside-background radiation, do not fly anywhere-radiation in the skies and don't go outside-sun gives off radiation. If I remember correctly, the radiation from an anolog (film based) mammogram was the equivilent of about 2-3 weeks radiation one would get from background radiation. With digital mammography, you are looking at least 1/2 that radiation, less depending on the unit.

One has to wonder what effects we will discover from MRI's 20 yrs down the road. Don't get me wrong, MRI has its benefits, but not all of us can have an MRI for a screening. Quoting above, one must outweigh the benefits over the risks. That is what we are doing with mammography and that is what we are now doing with MRI's too!

I think this is a wonderful web site and forum to come to for answers and support. The one thing I think I have also learned though, is the number of ladies that respond here are a very small number compared to the number of ladies that are being screened. For those ladies, mammography has been very beneficial. Please don't discount mammography because for some ladies it did not pick up their cancers. Mammography, ultrasound and MRI are all wonderful tools for helping discover bc, no one is perfect and they should be used in conjunction with each other.

But then again, that is just my opinion...

climbergirl

All,

Please read this....it does not show that mammo's cause Cancer but does show something that may change the way we treat this disease. As someone who has already been pressured to go through as much treatment as possible for my dx ( 3 surgeries, Mx, chemo and radiation) this makes me really wonder. We still have no clue about this disease on many levels.....

 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/25/health/25breast.html 

Happy Thanksgiving?!

 ~climbergirl

ADK

Let me tell my story - it is very much the same as Baywatcher - I started mammos at 35 and continued them yearly until I was 45 or so - then I had a really bad mammo that was so tight, I tried to pull out.  6 months later, a lump appeared exactly where I tried to pull out.  I let it go because I assumed it was an injury.  Three years later at 49, I had a lumpectomy and it was DCIS with some IDC.  I stopped doing mammos after that really bad one and now I still will only do MRIs.  I don't believe the radiation from mammos is sufficient to cause cancers unless the person is really susceptible.  I do believe you can develop cancer from an injury and honestly, mammos are barbaric.  The have to find another way to screen.  JMHO  

vivre

I have the same qualms about mammos. I had one the year before dx. The radiologist did not see a lump. I found the lump myself. I will never have another mammogram. I have read enough on them to be suspicious. I am doing thermography instead. They are the same statistically at finding tumors(if read by an experienced doctor), are painless(YES!), and they are not harmful in any way. If the doctor sees something suspicious I will have an ultrasound, same as after a mammo, followed by an MRI if needed. Yes, this is a personal choice. There is a lot of info out there on both. I just prefer to not have anymore radiation to my compromised body. Especially since they make you do them a lot, and take lots of pictures after you have already had bc.

pk0199

Thermography cannot detect calcifications in the breast which is often a precurser to Ca, please be careful with that!

swm63

I am new to this, but what is the difference between the radiation the mammo does and the radiation one gets with their course of treatment(ie..chemo rads drugs,etc...)?????

Deirdre1

I no longer do mammograms because of a bi-latral mastectomy, I now do MRI's and it was only the MRI that saw the cancer..  I agree with this concern - "it is a small risk", but when you load on all the other "small risks" then you have a mess waiting to happen.. I always weigh into my decisions what medicine has to say about any issue, but if it looks like a duck....

Just because we allow the background radiation (and that should be addressed too) doesn't mean this risk should be lightened.

leaf

No one who is doing good science would say flatly 'mammograms cause cancer.'   Good scientists don't talk that way.

What we want to know is if the risks outweigh the benefits. Any dose of radiation may theoretically  cause cancer.  But we are exposed to MANY sources of radiation, both natural and chosen.  Some particles (neutrinos??) can literally travel through the entire planet Earth.  I have read that the average radiation exposure of a mammogram is about equal to that of sunbathing nude about 10 minutes, or  of riding in an airplane over Denver, Colorado. Does every female flight attendant get breast cancer? I don't think so.

On the other hand, we do expect the sun to rise tomorrow morning.  It is possible that an astromical event might happen and the sun may not rise tomorrow, but it is highly unlikely.

This is what the International Atomic Agency says:

2. Is screening justified from a radiation protection perspective?

Yes, when the norms of mammographic screening are adhered to.  The calculated risk of breast cancer associated with the use of ionizing radiation is much lower than the number of cancers detected in a well run, quality assured breast screening programme. In other words, the benefits of breast cancer screening far exceed the radiation risks.

http://rpop.iaea.org/RPOP/RPoP/Content/InformationFor/HealthProfessionals/1_Radiology/MammographyScreen.htm

Much higher doses of radiation are used in radiation treatment of breast cancer.  Again, it is a risk versus benefit issue. 

Deirdre1

Well, leaf I for one choose the more extreme surgery to avoid radiation.  When my father was dying from cancer (after all the scans mostly CT's but he did have mammo's) they used radiation to reduce (temporarily) the size of a met at the base of his skull - it relieved pain it had a use but they clearly stated that the tumor would return and it did!  So for the purpose of temp. release from pain I'm all for it.. but I am not sold on if it is appropriate in Stage 0 breast cancer..  and so, for me the benefit did not outweight the risk - if I was in my last stage and needed relief from pain I would use radiation but not this early!  Not for me and I would expect that the Atomic Agency has a dog in the race!  Mri's will be the way of future scans IMHO.  and overdue!

cp418

I strongly believe many breast cancers (and other cancers as well) have environmental origins from toxins, pollution, pesticides, etc.  I have no family hx of any females cancers so while doing some research I found strong links to exposure to pesticides as a young female child greately incerased my odds of having bc strongly hormone receptor positive - premenopause.  I was diagnosed age 49 premenopause 100% hormone positive.  As a youngster during the summer months our neighborhood was heavily sprayed for mosquitoes with the DDT fog trucks. The windows in the house were open back then (no AC) and my mother would run around trying to shult the windows.  Ten minutes later when the fog had cleared the kids ran outside to play on our newly sprayed lawns.  Now add hormones to our food products in recent years plus more pesticides on our food and this is where I believe I got it. 

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/sep/30/nation/na-ddt30

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071009082406.htm

http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/newscience/2007/2007-0730cohnetal.html

http://www.holysmoke.org/fem/fem0047.htm

prayrv

My honest opinion is that mammo's didn't cause my breast cancer - it caught it.  To me plain and simple.  If I had to give a reason, I would say it was the 20 plus years of birth control pills I took to regulate my period and such ( I tested out at 100% er +).  As another has said, we are constantly exposed to some sort of radiation, it is in our everyday lives (microwaves anyone?)  I will NOT hide under a rock but will try to live a sensible lifestyle now that I have had cancer.  I am scheduled to have a mammo in my good breast for an issue and if it catches it again, then it does and I will deal with it, again.  For all the follow up tests that involved some sort of radiation, bring it on so it will catch anything.  All testing has issues, MRI uses gadolinium which has shown to affect the kidneys - there is now a warning out regarding that.  CT uses radiation.  Bone scans uses radiation.  I can go further, but I think I'm rambling now. 

Gentle Hugs,

Trish 

leaf

They use higher doses of radiation in breast cancer treatment  than in breast cancer screening. 

Every choice of diagnosis and treatment is a risk vs benefit issue. This is different for every single person.  This includes the emotional well being of the person.

I don't see anyone here (including myself so far) citing actual professional journals for their source.  

 This study found NO association between screening mammograms and the risk of breast cancer in BRCA women. The abstract stipulates the results are tenative and more studies are needed. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16648044

In this study, they found no association between the estimated increase in radiation exposure mammograms and cancer in the Japanese population (article written in the early 1990s.) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8441600

The data is spotty, but I don't see any Pubmed reports showing the risk of breast cancer from mammographic screening  (in the appropriate age groups of course) outweighs the benefits.

I am not an expert on this subject, but I think scientists should have a big role in the interpretation of data.  Often times, the lay press misstates  the findings of scientific papers. Peer reviewed professional journals are better quality than others.

Anonymous

Just a note on the contrast dye--gadolinium-- that they use with breast MRIs. It can affect the kidneys by causing  fibrosing nephrotic syndrome, but it is highly unlikely if you have good kidney function. I now have to have a  blood test to assess kidney function (new regulation in NY state) within 30 days before my breast MRIs.  A royal pain, but necessary and required.

Anne

cp418

I just wanted to add (since I have a big tendency to ramble off topic) that my bc would never have been detected if it were not for the mammogram.  I have small breasts but my tumor was very deep up against the chest wall.  I had just visited my ob/gyn and gotten a clean examination and my routine yearly script for a mammogram. When the tumor was detected 4 different doctors were not able to feel it upon a physical exam: ob/gyn, radiation oncologist, medical oncologist nor my breast surgeon.  You can add me to the list too.  This is also why I have less confidence in doing a physical exam unless the tumor is close to the surface or unfortunately so large it is obvious.  more ramblings.......

PSK07

I've taken far more cross-country flights so far in my life than I'll ever have mammograms. You have a mammogram every year for 10 years and they don't find cancer. On year 11, they do. Did the mammogram cause it?  Correlation doesn't equal causation.

I had rads with my DCIS partly because I ultimately decided that the incredibly small risk of developing a cancer from the therapy was far outweighed by the benefit of local recurrence risk reduction. Mastectomy, in my mind, in my case, would have been overtreatment and overkill.

Mammograms are a relatively inexpensive yet effective screening tool. MRIs can be effective, but there are a lot of false positives (requiring biopsies) and they are very expensive. Equipment, techs, diagnosticians - not affordable by many smaller clinics as well as the uninsured. They carry their own risks and issues (claustrophobics and the very heavy beware).  

There's a lot of information on the web - some good, some not so good. Like Leaf says, peer-reviewed journals are some of the best sources of the good info.

Deirdre1

PSK07 - yes a lot of false positives which I stated in the other thread about Mammograms.. and just because we are exposed elsewhere doesn't mean we should say no to something that might, I said might have a better way of seeing cancer at even earlier stages???  Medicine has not YET figured out the way to make MRI's read better (to reduce false positives), cheaper and more available.. With more usage, more expience under their belts and more qualified techs it WILL be a better way to go than mammograms and as a result of these things happening cost will go down and availability will go up.

Doesn't matter if your cancer was found with a mammogram or DCIS now - but what about the millions of women who have yet to face this - for them there is hope in the MRI.. in the meantime it (mammo') are the only thing going, at least cheaply and easily available - but MRI's are becoming more the "standard of care".

Beesie

Radio waves and magnetic fields..... how do we know that MRIs are any safer than mammograms?  Who knows what they'll be saying about MRIs in 20 years?   This isn't to scare anyone off mammograms or MRIs, but just to say, as leaf pointed out, it's all a question of risk vs. benefit.  Many medical tests and probably every drug we take has some risk associated with it. But we take the tests and take the drugs because we (or our doctors) judge the benefit to be greater than the risk.  I believe that mammos may put me at a small risk.  I believe that MRIs may put me at a small risk (yet unknown).  The benefit is that for me these technologies were able to detect a cancer at an early enough stage that it could be treated and is unlikely to be life threatening.  For me, that's a pretty big benefit, one that far outweighs the risks.   

Deirdre1

MRI's have been around and monitored for more than 20 years now.. safe.. radiation however has a l o n g history of being very dangerous to our health - not trying to scare anyone either but as science moves on we must too and mammo's are outdated.  I think it is wonderful, Beasie that you mammo found early stage breast cancer, but might an MRI have found it even earlier - isn't that the goal of all the pink add commercials?  Doesn't really change much for you, I understand but maybe it can change things for other's in the future.  Mammo's have their place in history and maybe they were helpful to you, but there is huge evidence that if we are interested in finding Stage 0 bc we are getting better results with MRI's.  

For me the mammo's did nothing except give me a false sense of security..  but I was convinced by the medical community that they were necessary..  it won't be long before they are telling us that MRI's are the way to go..  Even with a negative BRCA (and yes I know they don't know all the cancer gene's yet), negative sonagrams, negitive digital mammo's - my doc's said that an MRI was essential.. and there was DCIS Stage 0... just a matter of time.. unless they cure cancer first - anybody want to take odds on that happening in the next 10 years???  Well I wish it were the case but after watching for 35 years and seeing very little change EXCEPT for early dx I'm not going to hold my breath.

Granny71

I have a more serious concern about damage to breast tissue from compression than from radiation. I am very small in the cup although broad in the torso.  This tender flesh was not intended to be brutalized like that. Mammos are major trauma for me, but the 2008 mammo showed something that was not on the 2006 (did not have one in .07). In addition to two long-time, benign fibroid adenomas there was a third white spot, which turned out to be DCIS, surgically removed last Friday. As suggested by another sister, even breathing, eating and drinking water can be hazardous to our health -- we have to learn as much as we can and make the best possible decisions, weighing benefits against risks. Once cancer is discovered we often wind up with "lesser of two evils-choices," where cures may sometimes be more deadly than carcinomas... may God help us all!

Beesie

Deirdre, I have nothing against MRIs - I have dense breast tissue so they are part of my annual screening process and I'm glad about that - but studies have shown that it's actually a combination of MRIs and mammos that are best at detecting early stage breast cancer, and particularly DCIS.  MRIs catch more than mammos, but mammos catch some that MRIs miss. 

I appreciate that you are down on mammos because they didn't help you, but study after study has concluded that the benefits from mammos, in terms of identifying early stage breast cancer and reducing mortality, outweigh the risks.  However, saying that mammos still have a place in the screening process doesn't mean that MRIs don't also have a place, or that MRIs won't over time become more important.  Hopefully MRIs will be improved so that they provide fewer false positives and hopefully the costs will come down so that they are available to more women.  That would be a good thing.  But it will probably be a while before they replace mammos completely, if they ever do.  At some point in the future mammos may be outdated, but they aren't today.  This means that for now, women need to continue to have their mammos so that breast cancer can be detected.  It's an individual choice, of course, and this thread may lead some women to do more research on the safety of mammos (which would be a good thing) but I hope that no women are scared off mammos by this discussion. 

As for safety, I agree that mammos have a problem both with radiation (but at a very very low level) and squeezing the breast tissue.  Fortunately digital mammos are now available, using even less radiation and squeezing much less.  So digital mammos may continue to play an important part in the screening process for a long time - old style mammos may become outdated but digital mammos may not.  With regard to MRI safety, we have to keep in mind that while MRIs came into use in the early 1980s, they were quite rare until the past 10 years or so.  So while MRIs are assumed to be safe and while I have no problem having an MRI, I wouldn't put any money on MRIs being proven to be without risk over the long term.  We simply don't know what we don't know.  :-)

Deirdre1

Well, I said much of the same as above in the other thread but I think that you might have a sort of distortion on MRI's because Canada isn't using them as much as the US is today.. I'm sure that will change..and there is much (unfortunately) in research about the negative outcomes, harmful effects of mammo's.. but I don't want to go round and round, I just want to reimforce that it is ALWAY good to ask the difficult questions and that we are all tainted by our own choices..

Best (thanks for the link too)

PSK07

I guess I'm still confused, then, because I don't see anything proving harmful effects of a mammogram.  The risk is incredibly low that a cancer will develop - in fact if you look at the links Leaf provided, there's no relationship between mammograms and developing cancer.

As pointed out above, everyone has to weigh their own risks and benefits with regards to any treatment or screening. What is prudent for me may not be for someone else.  I don't have any pain with mammograms, but many women do. My insurance approves my MRIs because I am high-risk, but I recognize that every dollar I spend in medical comes out of my employer's bottom line (it is self-insured). The radiologists where I get my mammos are dedicated to breasts, and they reads thousands of them a year, which ups the detection rate (study from last year).

Not wanting to really debate what's better - because it all depends - what women really have to focus on is this: the title of this thread is misleading & there is no scientific evidence presented here that mammograms cause cancer.

EleanorJ

What about ultrasounds? Can they be used routinely to detect BC?

pk0199

Ultrasounds, yes they extremely helpful but it is not really reasonable to use U/S as a screening tool. U/S is done at different depths and if you were to have a proper screening U/S for your breasts it would take hours. U/S is wonderful for a targeted area and is best used in conjunction with a mammogram or MRI. l will say again, no one modality is perfect for detecting bc, they should all be used in conjunction with each other to give us the best diagnosis possible. As for harmful effects, everything we do has consequenses, do your research, decide which methods are best for your situation and make your decision.

Best to all.