Breastcancer.org's Opinion on Changes to Mammography Guidelines

This absolutely angers me.  I've been reading about this.  Unbelievable! 

I had yearly mammos.  I had my mammo in March '04.  It didn't show up.  I found it in Dec. '04, but I was not doing SBEs.  I found it by accident.  How does one do that...by scratching your boob in the middle of the night and then waking up the next morning wondering if you dreamed you felt a lump....LOL  I do have a dense breast left...LOL

One of my daughters just turned 40 and I would hate to think that she or my other daughters who are in their 30s would not receive a mammo because of the cost.  In fact, two of my daughters who goes to the same OB/GYN had them do a baseline mammo after I was diagnosed.  That's how strongly she felt about it. 

The cost of these mammos is nothing like the cost of a life.  Too many very young women are being diagnosed with breast cancer.  It absolutely breaks my heart. 

I don't understand some of the info I read....like some cancers are treated that would go away on their own.  Was this referring to in situ tumors? 

I'm angry too!  This is the so dangerous.  I am NOT high risk, have no family history and was diagnosed thru a routine, annual mammogram last year at age 44.  This tumor was not detectable by touch - and 10 doctors tried - knowing exactly where the tumor was. 

That mammogram saved my life.  If I had waited until it was detected by touch or 6 years until I was 50 - I hate to think about my prognosis.

Most of my friends with BC are in their 30's and 40's - and most were also found on mammograms.

This makes no sense.  Criminal.

PIP, you're right in your assumption.  The insurance companies use exactly these sorts of guidelines, as well as those from ACS, ASCO, etc., to decide what they're going to cover.  They won't pay for things that are not "medically necessary."  So, if this committee decreed that screening mammograms aren't needed (or aren't useful, or aren't recommended, or whatever) for women under 50, that means those mammograms aren't a "medical necessity" and they aren't likely to be covered.

So far, from the reactions I've read, the insurance companies here are sticking with their current coverage policies.  I think a lot of people are just waiting to see how all of this will look in a few days. 

I do think it's interesting that these new guidelines seem to be similar to the guidelines already in place for European countries (no screening mammos until 50; 2-year intervals after that). Apparently, Britain uses a 3-year interval for women over 50.  But, if those are just "guidelines" and a doctor's orders can override them (and the govt. system will pay for mammograms outside the guidelines), that certainly changes things.

otter 

I just heard an interview on TV with Dr. Susan Love, who supports the new guidelines.   She said that before age 50 women have dense breasts so mammograms do not work well.  She also said they are being exposed to too much radiation and the risk outweighs the benefit.  

I have ILC.  I also had dense breasts even after age 50.  My gyno also recommended HRT, which leads to dense breasts.  Mammograms did not see my cancer until it was extensive, and even then, not well.  MRI on the other hand saw it very well.  If MRI images well when breasts are dense, it seems logical that they should become the standard of care for women with dense breasts.  I'm not so naive as to think that this will happen, knowing the costs of MRI's and the fact that many women don't have access to them.  However, it seems that we are throwing out an imaging modality that doesn't work, according to these experts, and yet not proposing to replace it with a modality that works well.  Personally, I think these new guidelines are insane.  There is nothing more frightening than a proposal to do nothing but BSE for women under 50.  What are they thinking?