Mammo catch cancer early enough/breast can be saved?

KP1970

I had a unilateral mastectomy on my right side almost 6 years ago. I'm 42. I of course, am happy to be alive...but I get somewhat depressed thinking about one day losing the other breast.

Wouldn't a mammo catch a cancer early enough that a mastectomy might not be necessary? I thought my radiologist said last year that even if something was detected on the mammo, it would be early enough that they could zap it with radiation.

Beesie

In most cases, yes, a mammo (possibly combined with other screening tools - ultrasound and MRI) will catch breast cancer while it's still small enough that a mastectomy isn't necessary.  I believe that a MX is considered to be "medically necessary" (i.e. having a MX is the way to remove all the cancerous breast tissue) in only about 20% of cases (or possibly less).  So that means that in about 80% of cases, the area of cancer is small enough that a lumpectomy + rads is a viable treatment option.

Of course, until it happens, you can't know if you will be in the 80% group or the 20% group. For women who have extremely dense breasts that are hard to image with a mammogram, it helps to add an ultrasound and/or MRI to your screening in order to ensure early detection.  But if your breasts are not overly dense, then hopefully regular mammos are a good first to catching breast cancer early.

And with luck none of this matters anyway because you won't ever be diagnosed with BC again!

greenacres

Mine was caught early enough on a mammogram at age 40 (calcifications only). I had a lumpectomy, chemo, radiation and herceptin.  So yes!    GOOD LUCK