Early Mammograms May Trigger Genetic Breast Cancer

cp418

http://www.naturalnews.com/025560.html

barbe1958

Started to read it, but as she was a doctor of Philosophy and the study was done by the social services department, didn't take it too much to heart.

What I am reading, is that with increased mammos in young BCRA+ women, more cancers are being CAUGHT not CAUSED. Read between the lines. Years ago the gene wasn't known so a lot of these early cancers were missed until too late. 

Someone had a post a while back about them saying in Sweden or somewhere that cancers went away if left alone. Their proof was that of the ladies still alive at a certain age, no one had breast cancer! That was the whole grounds of their theory. Of course, the fact that a lot of the other ladies died of breast cancer had nothing to do with it. They shouldn't have had surgeries and treatments, because look at these other ladies still alive! These other ladies must have had breast cancer and just ignored it and it went away as they got older. SO stupid. Do people get grants to work on this shit?

priz47

Interesting that BRAC+ women get cancer! Of course, when they have an 85% chance! I did think though how many women get radiation who are BRAC+? If it increases mets as stated, then I would be worried. As usual, more studies needed.

D

baywatcher

cp418- 

I attend a support group which has a retired oncologist in attendance. I have always thought that mammograms may (not sure but may) have contributed to my breast cancer. The group was discussing this and the doctor said that there is ABSOLUTELY a risk (however small) that mammograms are a cause of breast cancer. (He also stated that mammograms save lives by detecting early cancer.) I actually do believe that some cancers go away if left untreated. If I knew then what I believe now, I would not have exposed myself to mammograms even once. Thank you for the link.

leaf

Here is a Pubmed abstract..  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19176458  They do not say that radiation TRIGGERS breast cancer in young BRCA women.  I think that would be a rather foolhardy assumption because we don't know exactly how breast cancer evolves.  I think the abstract says the risks of mammograms may outweigh  potential benefits ( such as earlier detection by earlier detection) in young women with BRCA mutations.  I know there is also the controversy whether earlier detection is better - because if a breast cancer is going to metastasize, it is thought it often does this at about year 2, and it is often not detected by any means before age 6-10 years.

As with ANY medical decision, you have to weigh the risks and benefits.   The abstract states there are many assumptions made because of lack of empiric data.Their model may or may not be accurate.  Of course, any dose of radiation COULD cause cancer.  Of course, we are also exposed to radiation in our normal lives, even if we NEVER get near an Xray machine. (For example we cannot avoid cosmic rays.)

Of course, this paper is NOT suggesting that women don't get mammograms at all - they are saying IF their models are correct, mammograms may not be very useful in BRCA carriers before the age of, say, 30-35.

This is just one study, and probably a lot of people would like confirmation in other studies.  This studies uses models, which some people probably find controversial.

I think that most authorities agree that for mammograms, the benefit outweighs the risk for non-BRCA women after the age of 50.  I thought many BRCA cancers were found by patients, and not as frequently by mammograms.  The jury may be out on this though.

I remember reading in ?Dr. Love's Breast Book that she felt imaging radiation to the breast buds (even chest Xrays I guess) for GIRLS was contraindicated.  So it sounds like there may be an age factor.

The amount of radiation you receive it a modern mammogram is much lower than it used to be, say 10-20 years ago.  From what I've read, its much lower than, say, a chest Xray.

barbe1958

I thought MRI's were used to pick up the earliest cancers though. Regular mammo catches it far too late...

vivre

This all goes back to the reason I now prefer thermography. There is no danger of radiation and if read by an experienced tech, they are just as good at detection as mammos. I will never have a mammo again. If my therms show any changes, I will ask for an US or MRI.

Dejaboo

Barbe1958- My Early BC was picked up with a Regular Mammo (Not Digital)

DCIS was found.  tiny IDC was found with the Lumpectomy.  Neither the MRI nor a Digital mammo  Picked up my IDC

Pam

smithlme

When my oldest sister was diagnosed with BC at 36 I started getting mammos every year, I was 30. My first diagnosis was at 47 and again, a new primary, at 48. Since then, we have both been diagnosed BRCA 2+. Hmmmmmm...was it the early mammos? Was it our BRCA positive status? Why did her gene express at 36 and mine at 47 and again at 48? I found my first lump and the second, DCIS, was found by mammo. I hate to think what would have happened if I hadn't have had that mammo, and waited until it was a lump. Studies are, just that, studies. I come from a family of "flukes" and I have to do what I believe is best for me and my situation. I never asked my Onc for my prognosis...I choose to believe I will continue to live...

Linda

cp418

Ladies - thanks for explaining the details of this study and reading between the lines.  Sometimes I think these individuals just want to publish an article and not realize the confusion it may cause patients.  I'll keep getting the mammos.

barbe1958

Vivre, I agree that we should all get thermographic.

Pam you were very lucky to get a confirmed diagnosis. I have'nt had a regular mammo for the last 15 years without having to "come back for more pics" or an ultrasound. I wish the mammos were more definitive. I had a bleeding nipple before they went to MRI!

Sashie

I was reading that the average woman will get get about 30 rads in her lifetime from regular mammos. If you get cancer and have radiation you will get about 5000 rads. Big difference. Another interesting thing is those who get radiation have less chance of recurrance. If the radiation was the cause of cancer wouldn't you think that those that had radiation treatment would get more cancer? I know when they do radiation they are killing the cells but the cell next to these that aren't killed but still got lots of radiation being in the vicinity aren't turning to cancer.

A mammo is a dose of about three months of background radiation. A chest xray is about 10 days worth of background radiation.  

leaf

I'm glad you put some numbers out, Sashie.

  I think the title of the article is very misleading.

The way the title says, it implies that any woman who gets a mammogram and has a genetic disposition will get breast cancer.   I'm sure that has happened, and the abstract is trying to quantify that with models, I'm sure the number of cases is very small.

I just hope this article doesn't scare women from having mammograms and routine screening.  No, our imaging is far from perfect.  But at the present time, we don't have anything better.  I'm sure there aren't enough MRI machines or trained staff/radiologists to suggest MRI as  a routine screening tool.

I don't think most scientists are suggesting that thermography would be useful as an initial screening tool.  My friend had one and said for her it was not very pleasant - you are quite cold.  The specificity is about 44% in this study.  In any event, it sounds like its not ready for prime time yet. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18809055

Mary22

My very first mammogram caught my cancer in the very early stages. I was a high risk candidate, my mom died at 29 of ovarian cancer.

Anonymous

barbe--actually MRIs are better are  detecting invasive bc, while mammos are better at detecting the non-invasive bc's (DCIS and LCIS).

barbe1958

Mine was a weird cancer and showed up on ultra sound and MRI only. Also, very close to chest wall, pretty much on it, so no chance of mammo picking it up.

I like what I heard about the thermographic ones. Wonder when they'll hit Canada, or if they're only for the rich up here, like PET scans.... 

Beesie

Barb, thermography is available through private sources in Canada.  While I believe that you would have to pay for this yourself, I doubt that it's any different than it would be in the U.S.. In the U.S. since thermography is not widely approved as a breast cancer screening tool, I suspect that many or most insurance companies wouldn't cover the cost.  So the patient would have to pay there too.  Here is information about breast thermography available in Toronto:  http://www.breastofcanada.com/newsletterapril.html

And here's what the American Cancer Society says about thermography:  Thermography has been around for many years, and some scientists are still trying to improve the technology to use it in breast imaging. But no study has ever shown that it is an effective screening tool for finding breast cancer early. It should not be used as a substitute for mammograms. http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_2_3X_Mammography_and_Other_Breast_Imaging_Procedures.asp?sitearea=PED

And even this breast thermography website in the U.S. says that thermography does not replace mammograms:  "Does Digital Infrared Imaging replace mammograms? Absolutely not! However, do mammograms replace DII? The answer to this is also a resounding no; the two tests complement each other. The consensus among health care experts is that no one procedure or method of imaging is solely adequate for breast cancer screening."  http://www.breastthermography.com/commonly_asked_questions.htm

The fact is that each screening method - mammogram, ultrasounds, MRIs, thermography - uses different technology and as a result each is best at 'seeing' and identifying certain conditions and each is ineffective at 'seeing' and identifying other conditions.  For anyone who is high risk, using more than one screening tool makes the most sense.

barbe1958

So we're damned if we do, and damned if we don't.....sigh.