Alternatives to Mammography
Comments
-
I am not trying to stir the pot, but as someone who got mammographs that never saw my cancer, I have little faith in them. I will never subject myself to the smash and burn again. I have had 3 thermographs and love them. They are FDA approved, painless and safe. I love having the pics sent to me by my docs so I can watch for changes myself. They are proven to be just as reliable at detection, but since they are not the money makers that mammos are, they are not pushed by the powers that be. Dr. Love is trying to encourage a new way to look at bc because the old ways aren't all that successful.
-
From the University of Chicago, prevent cancer coalition:
http://www.preventcancer.com/patients/mammography/ijhs_mammography.htm
Another study:
http://www.iact-org.org/articles/articles-review-btherm.html
Therms are especially beneficial to young breasts and fibrous breasts because the infared camera can see through the tissue, and find irregulatrites in blood flow, temperature, etc.
As I said I have had three, and am doing another next month. I actually look forward to it because it gives me peace of mind. Imagine if more women were told there is a diagnostic tool that is safe, painless, and cheap. Imagine how many more women might be saved.
-
Thank you for these thought provoking articles, vivre.
I would opt for thermography if it were available, but to the best of my knowledge, nobody does it in my area.
I'll be passing these links on, thanks again.
-
My friend who just had a recurrence has has 3 thermographs over the past 2 1/2 years. She kept telling me how it detects breast cancer 8 years before mammograms. Her most recent one was about 6 months ago.
Sounds much LESS likely to catch b.c. than a mammogram. As for the 8-yr claim, I've seen no data on that.
That web site is not the official position of the Univ. of Chicago. That is one emeritus professor that they kindly bestow web space to.
-
Not to stir the pot again, but if Dr. Love was advocating for Thermography, she did not mention it on Good Morning America or in any other discussion about this that I have read on line. I realize mammograms do not find all tumors, and Vivre specifically did not find yours. Personally, I am so thankful that I did annual mammograms as my tumor was picked up - at a stage 1 when I have no family history or high risk factors (and have been told that I have dense tissue). However we need better diagnostics so women do not "fall thru the cracks".
If mammography before 50 is not the answer (although it picks up many cancer cases) then perhaps thermography before 50 should be the rule - not just waiting until 50.
Why doesn't Dr. Love or the NCI approve or recommend thermography?
I think it is absolutely criminal to expect women to rely on nothing until 50 - the tumor I had was completely non palpable - by the time I had noticed it I would be at a much later stage and more expensive to treat let alone much worse prognosis. My kids sure are better off with a mom at stage 1.
-
The ACS specifically says that thermography is NOT a substitute for mammograms. Additionally, yes it is FDA approved, but it's approved for ADJUNCTIVE breast cancer screening, which is vastly different from an alternative! Anyone looking for alternatives would be well suited to do some careful research before making decisions that could affect their diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis.
Directly from the American Cancer Society website:
=============QUOTE================(emphasis mine)
Thermography (thermal imaging)
Thermography is a way to measure and map the heat on the surface of the breast using a special heat-sensing camera. It is based on the idea that the temperature rises in areas with increased blood flow and metabolism, which could be a sign of a tumor.
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.
Newer versions of this test are better able to find very small temperature differences. They may prove to be more accurate than older versions, and are now being studied to find out if they might be useful in finding cancer.
===========UNQUOTE==========
-
I had thermography done this past June after discovering this mass. The medical report that accompanied it explained that the pattern it showed did not indicate cancer, but DID recommend a follow-up thermogram three months later (I guess there was an area of concern).
When three doctors flat-out told me I have cancer, I pretty much wrote off thermography and decided it wasn't accurate.
Now that I know my entire mass and microcalcifications are in situ, it makes more sense with what my thermography analysis said (since in situ can sometimes eventually develop into invasive stage I+ cancer). I'm back to being an advocate of them now although I want to look into them more.
I've read that thermography used to be a standard diagnostic procedure but was discontinued because it was sometimes showing false positives. In reality, it supposedly detects carcinoma much earlier than mammography, so it's possible that those false positives were just very early detection.
One thing I can't understand: WHY isn't ultrasound recommended as the standard for early detection in young women instead of mammography?? It's more accurate for younger/denser breasts, AND it doesn't radiate you. What gives??
-
Vivre,
With all due respect, you really are spreading dangerous misinformation here! In fact, here's a quote from the IACT article that YOU linked to!
=========QUOTE============(emphasis mine)
The medical community investigated breast thermography quite extensively during the late 1970's and early 1980's. The FDA approved the procedure as an adjunctive tool in breast cancer screening, and many physicians, concerned about the radiation exposure of mammography, began to promote thermography as a replacement for mammography. This was error.
......(some info deleted for space sake)
Thermography was viewed as a competitive tool to mammography, a role for which it was never intended. This is a known fact in the community of board certified clinical thermographers. Thermography is complimentary to mammography and an adjunctive tool in the war on breast cancer. We must learn to accept the information these tools bring to us, and use the information to the best management of the patient. You and me.
=========UNQUOTE=============
-
Spreading dangerous misinformation is the mission of this forum, it seems.
Spreading facts is called trolling.
It's like that reverse world through the looking glass.
-
-
I knew this would happen. Those of us with different opinions are not allowed to speak out. Why does it have to be either /or? I agree that mamms are fine if that is what you want. But they did not do me any good. I found my own tumor. Like any diagnostic, they are only as good as the person who reads them. I guess I had a lousy tech because she could not see a tumor the size of a grape. And it is customery to do 3 month follow ups for therms is something is suspicious. Just like with mammos, they need a baseline to see about changes. I have a great doctor who reads my therms whom I trust.
I am not telling people to do something dangerous and I resent being called a troll for stating other facts. The ACS does a lot of things I do not agree with and they are the largest charity, oops business, in the world, so they have a lot of money at stake and a lot of money comes from Big Pharma. If people do not agree, I have no problem with that. I just do not understand why we cannot have a forum without defending ourselves for everything we say. Notice I did not put this on the pro mammogram forum because I respect people who believe in them. I put this on this forum because it is an alternative. I stand by my convictions and I could put up links to hundreds of studies that back up thermography, but why bother. Someone will try to find some little sentence and take it out of context. It is not worth the arguing. I hate the arguing on this whole board. I will not be sucked into it anymore. I stated some facts. Take it or leave it.
-
I didn't call anyone a troll. And I certainly never said people with different opinions weren't "allowed" to speak out. In fact, that's all I was doing here too. Are you saying I'm not "allowed" to speak out because my opinion differs from yours? I realize this is the alternative thread, but it really bothers me that I can do a Google search for mammogram alternatives and this thread comes up, especially with the recent mammogram media news. Anybody, anywhere can find this thread while searching for information, and I think it's important that they find balanced, reasonable, and truthful information.
I don't come here to argue either, and I'm not asking you to "defend yourself." I just think both sides should be presented, so readers can make an informed choice. As a matter of fact, I was only 39 at diagnosis and found my huge lump myself before I had ever had a screening baseline mammogram, so I'm not claiming they're perfect or even right for everyone.
I absolutely have no problem with your choices, but I do have a problem with people presenting so-called "facts," when the very references they cite say the opposite! The other link you provided above doesn't have anything at all to do with thermography, so I'm not sure what that was about!
Your own words in this thread you titled "Alternatives to Mammography" say that thermography is a safe, FDA-approved alternative (you didn't say adjunctive or complementary) to mammography, and is "proven to be just as reliable." These things may be your OPINION, but certainly aren't indisputable "facts." If you have some real research/scientific links on thermography, I'd love to see them. I do think it has potential, but I'd never gamble my life on it, especially knowing that with a Ki-67 of 100%, there is no way my tumor could have been seen 8-10 years ago.
-
Wow. It is really amazing how an initial post that was well-intentioned and provided by such a valuable contributor is so harshly met with criticism. It is unfair and unwarranted. Vivre was simply providing information on a thread that is intended to discuss alternatives. Anyone who is not open to considering alternatives or having conversation that is useful, should not be here.
Ladies, we are all adults who are all intelligent enough to make our own decisions regarding how we choose to live our lives and what treatments are best for each of us on an individual basis. No two people or cancers are the same. This is a site where we gather information and provide support to one another. If you do not intend to do either of these things, you should not be here. Can't we all just get along???
-
aprilgirl1, you wrote: "....I think it is absolutely criminal to expect women to rely on nothing until 50 - the tumor I had was completely non palpable - by the time I had noticed it I would be at a much later stage and more expensive to treat let alone much worse prognosis. My kids sure are better off with a mom at stage 1"
But I have noticed that you are ER+, PR+, HER- (by the way: I have the same one). Your statement above suggests that you are under the impression that "early detection" saved your life. However, there is a shift away from that assumption in the research community (see Dr. Barry Kramer (of NIH), in the thread entitled "Birds, Bears, and the Turtles"). According to that new scientific school of thought, cancers are either Bears (slow to very slow growing); Turtles (non-progressive at all); or else: Birds (aggressive and fast). If scientists are on the right track (and I believe they are), let's be thankful that our tumors are what they are. If this had been a "bird" tumor (which ER+, PR+, HER- USUALLY are not), unfortunately, it would not have mattered how small and early it would have been caught. Sadly, the prospects for "bird" tumors are grim, because....... there is no effective treatment for those. The cure remains so very evasive.....
I have several support group girlfriends with OUR tumor type whose tumors grew and grew to 3.5, 4, 4.5, 5 cms before their respective diagnostics. Never went to the lymph nodes. Low Onco-Dx... So far, no metastasis.
Food for thought?
It is doubtful, in light of the latest findings, that mammography saved your life. Very doubtful.
I suspect this reality is now BLINDING the scientific community to where it can no longer be ignored, which I personnally believe is the reason for today's announcement of "screening" guidelines changes. I am not one bit surprised. I had been sort of waiting for this. However, I did not think it would ever happen, due to the billions of dollars at stake.
Of course, this situation is distressing for doctors and patients alike, and Dr. Marisa Weiss's point of view is a reflection of this collective panic.
Let's be prepared, though: the truth will continue to come at this day and age of the information superhighway, where patients are capable of finding their own sources of knowledge.
-
Yazmin, the point is, we don't know. My oncotype score was NOT low by the way. What was yours?
I sure as heck would not wait around for an invasive tumor to possibly spread.
Onccotype is a perfect example of how the medical community is trying to customize treatment.
edited to add: I do consider catching this tumor as a stage one (1.6cm) as saving my life. I would have rather caught it at dcis but went 1.5 years between mammograms. If thermography would do the same, great. But don't wait until 50. Mine was caught at 44. Not high risk. Now I am and so are my kids.
-
And Twa, you wrote: "... Spreading dangerous misinformation is the mission of this forum, it seems."
It will suffice to say that this is an unfair, reductionist statement, in view of the numerous well thought-out posts that can be found in this forum. If only one takes the time to look.
-
Yazmin - if my tumor was harmless I assume my oncotype score would be in the low group.
-
aprilgirl: My Onco-DX gave me a 9% recurrence rate. And I must agree with you: we simply don't know enough. The point is, unfortunately, a tumor that is determined to be invasive will spread. Despite chemo. Despite hormonal treatments. And despite early mammogram detection. Sad to say: that's how far we have gone after decades of pinking.
-
aprilgirl, you wrote: "if my tumor was harmless I assume my oncotype score would be in the low group." It appears to be MUCH more complicated than that, to where even our dear doctors are confused.
That your Onco-Dx is higher does not mean that your tumor is aggressive: that's only ONE parameter among many others. -
I think we can all agree with the statement, "the point is, we simply don't know enough".
So, is thermography the answer? Maybe it is.
Still, I am very happy to have had that invasive tumor identified and removed! Aren't you?
I also agree with you that it is sad that we simply don't know enough despite all the pinking - the dreaded pinking!
-
Actually, aprilgirl1, I have not been using thermography despite encouragements from one naturopath I briefly saw, precisely because I have my doubts about it. The thing I like about thermography is that it is totally non-toxic. One of the issues that will continue to surface as the mammography debate heats on, is that a number of independent researchers have, for the longest time, been expressing serious concerns about the radiation produced by this the mammogram ITSELF (no matter how much we have been "reassured" that it is equal to 5 minutes (or is it 5 seconds?) of being a man, Dida, Dida).
-
I'm afraid I don't have much faith in mammograms as I had one in May which found no abnormalities and then in October/08 I found a lump myself during a self breast exam. And I was 58 years old at the time but apparently I still had dense breast tissue. Because of this factor (that mammography didn't do its job for me), I am trying a thermogram for the first time early in the new year. It's something my naturopath recommended so I think it's at least worth a try. She believes in a combination of mammograms and thermography, alternating them year about so as to cut down on the amount of radiation exposure. That sounds like a sensible combination to me.
-
My tumor didn't show on my mammogram either, and the ultrasound wasn't much better. It showed 'suspicious shadowing.' Yet even months earlier, my nipple was starting to invert, and if I'd had a doctor who had spent even 5 minutes learning what lobular breast cancer is, I think I would have been diagnosed 9 months sooner. I was 46 at dx.
I too am concerned about the radiation received in a mammogram, and I am concerned also about all the shortcomings of mammography. Even so, my gut feeling is public policy going in the wrong direction by recommending 50 as the new threshhold for screening. So many here are under 50 and as far as I know, most are dx'd with mammography.
The new guideline comes across to me as valuing money more than the 3% of women that might die because of failure to get diagnosed. I've only just seen the video of the Weiss/Love interview on GMA. I'm not fully grasping why Love is supportive of this proposed change. One more thing to get up to speed on.
-
I have such contradictory thoughts and many questions about mammograms, early screening, how often to be screened etc. I had many cysts throughout my 40s and had initially 2 yearly mammograms and ultrasounds and then yearly ones. Just after my 50th birthday (and still premenopausal) I was diagnosed with medium and high grade DCIS which was right through my breast and was told that I should have a mastectomy - which I did.
I have heard that bc can be present for up to 10 years before it is discovered. How long was mine there? Apparently there was no sign of it 12 months before. Was it there then, but smaller? Did it suddenly grow in the previous year? There is no history of breast cancer in my family. Did I help to cause the DCIS by exposing myself to mammography radiation as a younger woman?
Ever since my dx, I have wondered if all those mammos contributed to my bc. I also wonder if I should continue to have them yearly. Because my bc was caught as stage 0, you could argue that the yearly mammos worked - it was caught when it was pre-invasive for which I am eternally grateful.
So...I suppose I will continue to have yearly mammos...but I don't feel entirely comfortable about it. I really don't know what to think of thermography. I've heard both sides of the argument. I am such a fence sitter!
Good discussion though. I'm glad we have this alternative thread. I enjoy reading all the different opinions.
-
Hi Yazmin,
Can you post a link to Dr. Barry Kramer's explanation of the birds, bees and turtles explanation? I am probably searching in the wrong place, but I can't seem to find anything.
Many thanks!
-
My very well respected medical radiologist said that it would be fine for me to use it. After the hot spots occur, she would watch them. She said she would rotate the thermography with the gamma, the mri and the mammo/Ultra Sound. Out of the above - guess which one would be the cheapest if none are covered. I will say that her issue with therm alone was that if it detects hot spots, what happens next is that you get a mammogram so you are still getting the mammo.
*on a personal note, at age 35, I had a 2.5cm tumor in my right breast and I recently went to my 6 mos check up and looked at my mammo. You can see it right as rain on my US but the mammo showed only calcs (which imo is a very important reason why mammos should NOT be removed from insurance). It is in my mind, it's completely neglectful and liable to remove a tool without an alternate recommendation that regardless of its efficacy was the standard of care. Also, please don't forget about us under fourty girls - we have breasts too!!!
Viv, thanks for posting this, some but maybe not all may use it in tandem with other screenings and eventually it may get added as a tool especially for young women. I think it is also good to use while changing your diet/lifestyle to see if any hot spots diminish. My radiologist said that women who have calcs are watched for years w/o biopsy. What is the difference? Id like to see a panel on all of the screening methods against each respective tool (especially thermography due to it's cost and lack of radiation) that last over five to ten years.
-
I will admit to being pro- mammogram, kind of have to, I am a mammographer, but I am not here to toot mammos horn. I am here to say that each modality has it's limitations. One needs to do their research and choose which is best for them. Mammos use radiation and not all ca's are seen on mammography, MRI has false positives and there is a question to what the accumulative effects of the intravenous gadolinium, some say kidney failure, Ultrasound doesn't always pick up all breast ca's either, gamma- radiation dose equivalent to about 10 mammos a year(can't quite remember the exact number, I actually think it is higher, Thermography can be useful in the hands of "trained" professionals- buyer beware, make sure you investigate who is doing your exam. That last statement actually goes for all modalities. I think the real issue in light of the recent articles of reducing screening mammos to over 50, is it takes away a woman's right to choose which screening modality they can choose. That in itself is wrong, every woman out there is worth the cost to be screened whichever modality they choose.
-
Deni:
Here is the Bears, Birds, and Turtles post.
"......With overdiagnosis, we often end up ‘curing' cancers that didn't need to be cured in the first place," said Dr. Barry Kramer, director of the NIH Office of Disease Prevention and an expert on cancer screening......
http://www.cancer.gov/ncicancerbulletin/102009/page6
According to this theory:
Birds: Fast, aggressive turmors
Bears: Slow-moving tumors
Turtles: Stationary, non-progressive tumors
_________________________________________________
However, the ENTIRE conference where Dr. Kramer talked about it in a panel discussion will appear on this site in the next few weeks:
-
Well, I am happy that this has evolved into a thoughtful discussion rather than just an attack for an opposing point of view. I am not out to convince anyone to do what I do. I am just saying that there are alternatives for those who like me, think outside the box. What I love about my therms is that I am able to watch any changes myself. Since they are cheap and safe, I have no qualms about doing them more often. The one thing that my therms showed that was so frightening was how long the afteraffects of rads stayed in my body. At my last one, over a year after rads, my breast was still showing very hot, although it was noticeably cooler than the previous therm. When I go again next month for my 2 year, I am sure I will see a huge change. The reason is I can feel a huge difference in my breasts since I started iodine therapy. I think the iodine has pushed a lot of the radiation out of my body because the whole texture of my breast has changed. The hardness from rads has softened, and the huge knot where they did the boost is almost gone, as has my scarring. I just know that thermography will show this, and I will post it. If I ever have any suspicious therms, I will insist on US or MRI. I am way to distressed at the thought of more radiation that I will never allow another mammo. I agree with pk that the key is to have a trained and experienced professional doing them. I think the sad thing is that there is not enough emphasis in training techs and doctors to read thermography. That really irks me. The only explaination is that there is not much money to made in them. But wouldn't it be incredible if every woman's doctor was trained to read them. This could be a great way to start monitoring early, and safely.
-
Thanks Yazmin!
Categories
- All Categories
- 679 Advocacy and Fund-Raising
- 289 Advocacy
- 68 I've Donated to Breastcancer.org in honor of....
- Test
- 322 Walks, Runs and Fundraising Events for Breastcancer.org
- 5.6K Community Connections
- 282 Middle Age 40-60(ish) Years Old With Breast Cancer
- 53 Australians and New Zealanders Affected by Breast Cancer
- 208 Black Women or Men With Breast Cancer
- 684 Canadians Affected by Breast Cancer
- 1.5K Caring for Someone with Breast cancer
- 455 Caring for Someone with Stage IV or Mets
- 260 High Risk of Recurrence or Second Breast Cancer
- 22 International, Non-English Speakers With Breast Cancer
- 16 Latinas/Hispanics With Breast Cancer
- 189 LGBTQA+ With Breast Cancer
- 152 May Their Memory Live On
- 85 Member Matchup & Virtual Support Meetups
- 375 Members by Location
- 291 Older Than 60 Years Old With Breast Cancer
- 177 Singles With Breast Cancer
- 869 Young With Breast Cancer
- 50.4K Connecting With Others Who Have a Similar Diagnosis
- 204 Breast Cancer with Another Diagnosis or Comorbidity
- 4K DCIS (Ductal Carcinoma In Situ)
- 79 DCIS plus HER2-positive Microinvasion
- 529 Genetic Testing
- 2.2K HER2+ (Positive) Breast Cancer
- 1.5K IBC (Inflammatory Breast Cancer)
- 3.4K IDC (Invasive Ductal Carcinoma)
- 1.5K ILC (Invasive Lobular Carcinoma)
- 999 Just Diagnosed With a Recurrence or Metastasis
- 652 LCIS (Lobular Carcinoma In Situ)
- 193 Less Common Types of Breast Cancer
- 252 Male Breast Cancer
- 86 Mixed Type Breast Cancer
- 3.1K Not Diagnosed With a Recurrence or Metastases but Concerned
- 189 Palliative Therapy/Hospice Care
- 488 Second or Third Breast Cancer
- 1.2K Stage I Breast Cancer
- 313 Stage II Breast Cancer
- 3.8K Stage III Breast Cancer
- 2.5K Triple-Negative Breast Cancer
- 13.1K Day-to-Day Matters
- 132 All things COVID-19 or coronavirus
- 87 BCO Free-Cycle: Give or Trade Items Related to Breast Cancer
- 5.9K Clinical Trials, Research News, Podcasts, and Study Results
- 86 Coping with Holidays, Special Days and Anniversaries
- 828 Employment, Insurance, and Other Financial Issues
- 101 Family and Family Planning Matters
- Family Issues for Those Who Have Breast Cancer
- 26 Furry friends
- 1.8K Humor and Games
- 1.6K Mental Health: Because Cancer Doesn't Just Affect Your Breasts
- 706 Recipe Swap for Healthy Living
- 704 Recommend Your Resources
- 171 Sex & Relationship Matters
- 9 The Political Corner
- 874 Working on Your Fitness
- 4.5K Moving On & Finding Inspiration After Breast Cancer
- 394 Bonded by Breast Cancer
- 3.1K Life After Breast Cancer
- 806 Prayers and Spiritual Support
- 285 Who or What Inspires You?
- 28.7K Not Diagnosed But Concerned
- 1K Benign Breast Conditions
- 2.3K High Risk for Breast Cancer
- 18K Not Diagnosed But Worried
- 7.4K Waiting for Test Results
- 603 Site News and Announcements
- 560 Comments, Suggestions, Feature Requests
- 39 Mod Announcements, Breastcancer.org News, Blog Entries, Podcasts
- 4 Survey, Interview and Participant Requests: Need your Help!
- 61.9K Tests, Treatments & Side Effects
- 586 Alternative Medicine
- 255 Bone Health and Bone Loss
- 11.4K Breast Reconstruction
- 7.9K Chemotherapy - Before, During, and After
- 2.7K Complementary and Holistic Medicine and Treatment
- 775 Diagnosed and Waiting for Test Results
- 7.8K Hormonal Therapy - Before, During, and After
- 50 Immunotherapy - Before, During, and After
- 7.4K Just Diagnosed
- 1.4K Living Without Reconstruction After a Mastectomy
- 5.2K Lymphedema
- 3.6K Managing Side Effects of Breast Cancer and Its Treatment
- 591 Pain
- 3.9K Radiation Therapy - Before, During, and After
- 8.4K Surgery - Before, During, and After
- 109 Welcome to Breastcancer.org
- 98 Acknowledging and honoring our Community
- 11 Info & Resources for New Patients & Members From the Team