New Article from the LA Times On MAMMOGRAMS...interesting!!!

I found this quote, interesting:

"But radiologists are unlikely to adopt guidelines that call for a wait-and-see approach, says Dr. Fred Vernacchia, a radiologist and medical director at the San Luis Diagnostic Center in San Luis Obispo. Mammograms are the No. 1 source of malpractice lawsuits against radiologists, he says, and this creates an incentive to overdiagnose breast cancer.

"The choice is, overbiopsy and overdiagnose -- or live through another lawsuit," he says."

Well, that is my experience. In January, 2009 I had a Birad5 Breast MRI. The Mammo was Birad 4. Ultimatley, the Ultrasound Biopsy was Birad 1. No Cancer. 

The docs? They didn't believe it. They then wanted me to do a MRI-Guided biopsy. For just the reason stated, above. "Overbiopsy and overdiagnose -- or live through another lawsuit."

I did not have the MRI-Guided Biopsy. I just said, NO.

Six months later, they wanted me to have another breast MRI. (NOT cheap) I refused. I did have another Mammo/Ultrasound and it was Birad1. 

No cancer. Duh. 

People express, wonderment, at these "runaway health care costs."  

I shake MY head, in wonderment. At this apparently widespread belief that we can continue to do all of these "treatments" and it doesn't cost, anything.

In my case, a very astute radiologist saw something on my mammogram that he couldn't ID as cancer (even after follow up compression scans and an ultrasound) but  strongly recommended a biopsy (Birads classification was 3).

Yes, it turned out to be one of those very aggressive tumors that didn't show on the mammogram and probably would have metastasized within a few months.

I still feel the mammogram saved my life because of the radiologist's skill and gut feeling about the findings.

Hi GScott!  Whether it is "just as bad" I couldn't say.  I suppose it depends on where you're going, and how often you go there! 

The patient/public info website of the American College of Radiology and the Radiological Society of North America discusses the doses of ionizing radiation from various studies and compares them to other exposures.  The "Safety" page from that web site:

  http://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/safety/index.cfm?pg=sfty_xray#5 

says (among other things) that average person gets an effective annual dose of 0.03 millisieverts (mSv) from naturally occuring radioactive materials and cosmic radiation from outerspace.  That natural background amount varies around the country.  For instance, those at altitudes get more exposure (less atmospheric protection from cosmic radiation)--as much as 1.5mSv more than those at sea level.  Those who have radon gas exposure may be picking up another 2mSv per year.

They note that a coast-to-coast round trip plane trip will add .03mSv of exposure. 

The web site includes a chart that compares the amount of ionizing radiation for various x-ray studies to the time it would take an average person to be exposed to the same amount of background ionizing radiation.  They calculate that a mamogram is .7mSv of ionizing radiation...they say that that is comparable to 3 mo. of background radiation (or a little over two coast-to-coast round trips).

Minimizing lifetime exposure is clearly the key.  So a lower-dose mammography machine (when available) is definitely worth selecting!

HTH,

LisaAlissa

If I could turn back time I would never have a mammogram again.