Sign the Petition Against the new Mammography Guidelines

Sharon

I've been having mammograms since I turned 45.  A non-palpable lump was found when I was 55 - it had been there a while, but the switch to digital mammography found it.  A lumpectomy, radiation, and hormone therapy (along with a lot of finger crossing and prayers) and I'm fine.

I'm worried sick about my 2 daughters.   I keep hearing about younger and younger women getting breast cancer - it breaks my heart!  

What does anyone want to bet that they continue to push men for prostate cancer screening?

BSE at age 50 found lump just 6 months after clear mammo; IDC stage IIB grade 3, 2/10 nodes

pre-op MRI found contralateral LCIS, pleomorphic

bilat lumpectomy, rads, chemo and 2yrs NED and followed closely with digital mammo/MRI every 6 months

45 years old at diagnosis, found on Mammogram.

No family history, BCRA neg, 2 babies before 30, nursed both babies for year, started menses after 12.

Triple +++ (3% of breast cancers are triple positive); I am told that my dx was unconventional, aggressive and fast growing given my history and I was "lucky" this was found on mammogram so early. 

Also told byt two Oncs my "type" is from "the environment" (exposure to hormones in either birth control pills, meats or dairy products, or, something else in the environment). 

The mammogram may have saved my life, before the age of 50.

I was 48.  I did not have a lump. I have no family history of BC.  I had DCIS Stage 0, and aggressive.  Lumpectomy and 7 weeks of radiation, and so far so good (4 years).  Knock on wood. Dr. Weiss was my Dr., and she ROCKS.

If it weren't for mammos for women under 50, I would be dead now, and my autistic child would be an orphan.  For what?  An insurance company fiasco?  

What better things could they put the money toward?  New forms of Viagra???  

My life means something. Women's lives are worth more than CORPORATE AMERICA.

Everybody, burn your copy of the Breast Book.

I was age 39 (almost 40) found the lump myself, first ever mammo(at age 39) showed a shitload of calcium deposits and of course the lump. mastectomy,  6 months of chemo, next mammogram..a year later, not 2 like the newly suggested showed calcium build up in my other tata and another mass. 

 I am at the 2 yr. mark since diagnosis this month and refuse to give in to this disease or the U.S. Preventative Service Task Force!!!!  No family history...but now my daughter will...

Melody Krasneski dianosed at age 49. My first mammogram! No family history.My gyn gave me a breast exam , I did self exams. Mammo detected it , not me or my doctor. We don't have a cure YET. Until we do , if a mammo saves just one life , like mine , its worth it. Just ask my son , my mom , my sister , and all my friends! Please , until theres a better tool , or a cure , don't stop giving mammos to 40 plus. Thank you

Teresa A. Albright

Diagnosed age 47 thru routine mammogram.   Lump could not be felt.   My oncotype was 47...so that was almost 3 years ago....I might not be here now.

Mammogram showed suspicious calcifications.  MRI revealed probable cancer.  Biopsy confirmed it.  No family history.  Diagnosed age 42.

Anne Mullally - Diagnosed at 36.

Had pain in my left breast - denied mammogram in 2004 because I was "too young for breast cancer."

found lump during BSE - got mammogram - diagnosed stage III grade III 7/21/06. treatment included dose dense TAC, left mastectomy, radiation, tamoxifen.

re-diagnosed stage IV 3/18/08. treatment included radiation two times daily, xeloda, abraxane, carboplatin, avastin, femara.

I need to ask: could most of this been avoided if I had received the mammogram I asked for?

Kathy N. dx age 39 NO Family History   The only reason I can see that we all have this disease, is being human and mostly being a woman!

Dear Anne,

I don't like the new guidelines. I see where you are going with the misconception issue and I agree that that's a risk but I still have to say that your doctor screwed up in 2004. No matter what the guidelines say, once a woman or a man reports a breast lump that does not go away in a month a doctor should get it diagnosed irrespective of age.

Moi - my copy of Susan Loves Breast Book went out with the weekly trash on Tuesday.  It felt good to throw it away!

 Diagnosed the week after my 46th birthday, no risk factors. Found a lump, my primary doctor checked it out and told me it didn't feel like anything concerning.  I was due for my yearly mammogram  so I went and there it was.  The next week my mother got her mammogram a bit early so she could come and help me during chemo, and the mammogram detected her breast cancer.  We are both still here. 

Reading all these posts, I think that not only should they KEEP current guidelines for annual mammos after 40, they should also ADD recommendations for at least a couple of screening mammos when we are in our 30s. 

Or, since the Task Force in its infinite wisdom is so worried about unnecessary radiation in routine screening and since they think MRIs are too expensive, what about recommending ultrasound for younger women as an initial tool?

I live in Brazil and here breast ultrasound is part of routine gynecological checkups. It is non-invasive and cheap. The difference in density between water-filled cysts and solid tumors is very easy to pick up.

The lump I found when I was taking a shower, ten years ago when I was 39, did not show up on mammogram. All they could see on it were some calcifications.  That was before digital technology, maybe today they would have been able to to see it. But my lump was very clear on the sonogram they ran.

They could do sonograms routinely for younger women and if that shows anything suspicious, do a mammogram to follow up. 

Carolyn Bibb - dx age 41 as the result of a mammogram