Alternatives to Mammography

Amen Spring, it is what it is. I try to take it one day at a time!!!

Vivre, how many therms do you get in a year? Have you have a whole body scan?

Patty

Someone here had mentioned Breast Screening Gamma Imaging (BSGI). We do not have this available in Canada however, I did write the company to ask some questions. Apparently, Canada requires a different certification than Europe and US. They expect to have the certification approval in place by early 2010.

They sent me a very long email because I am going to the US to have this test done and wanted some information before moving forward. I also asked about the risks associated with the injection and would love input from others who are much more knowledgeable about this than I am. Here are some cut and pastes from the email;

REPLY "Both BSGI and mammograms are helpful in the diagnostic process- as can be ultrasound and MRI; but not one imaging test can provide all the answers, and that's why it is so important to have regular mammograms to view the history of the normal changes of breast tissue over time to what may be abnormal or sudden, and to complement that test with the functional capabilities of a molecular breast imaging tool."

IMY QUESTION "Is the amount of radiation comparable to the radiation injected during an MRI?"

REPLY: "Gadolinium is not a radioactive material, yet is a contrast dye used to increase the differences between different tissues or between normal and abnormal tissue by altering relaxation times.
The radiopharmaceutical used in the BSGI procedure has been used safely for more than 15 years in cardiac stress tests. The majority of the drug leaves your body within hours after administration, and is completely eliminated within 30 hours. According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the risks from the radiation dose associated with both mammography and BSGI/MBI procedures are considered to be "minimal." For additional information about the pharmaceutical risks of Technetium TC 99m Sestamibi please visit www.cardiolite.com/index_flash.html."

Any feedback is welcomed!!
Diagnosis: 7/10/2009, DCIS, <1cm, Stage 0, Grade 3, 0/3 nodes, ER-/PR-

Interesting article from today's NY Times. It suggests that high-risk woman who use mammography are more likely to get cancer...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/health/research/01cancer.html?_r=1&ref=health

Finally, some recognition for what has been "whispered" for some time!

My guess is that they have to introduce the fact that mammos do more harm than good SLOWLY. First the guideline shifts, then little stories like the one I posted above, with more to come I am sure. If it came out in one announcement that mammos can do more harm than good, think of all of the lawsuits there would be from women who were effected.

I agree, Yazmin, this is only the beginning!

I just called to schedule a follow up ultrasound. The radiology group that I typically go to would not schedule the appointment! I told the scheduler that I have a prescription from my doctor and she replied that their radiologist does not allow ultrasound without doing mammo! Can you believe it?!

I actually just made an appointment with the Dr. that PS saw recently. They are willing to do it. Unfortunately though, they are out of network!

Has anyone read the book Better Breast Health For Life?

Here is  list of links for information on Thermography: www.thermogramcenter.com/Links.htm

The site has tons of information.

For anyone in Colorado this is a great price. I paid $300 for mine.

Too bad I can't get the video to work.

Someone just sent this article from Reuters regarding screening using ultrasound...

Ultrasound effective at spotting breast cancers

(c) 2009 Reuters Limited

* Less-invasive test 100 percent effective in young women

* Technique addresses harms seen from self breast exams

By Julie Steenhuysen

CHICAGO, Dec 2 (Reuters) - Breast ultrasounds found 100 percent of suspicious cancers in women under 40 who found lumps or other suspicious areas of the breast, offering a cheaper, less-invasive alternative to surgery or biopsies, U.S. researchers said on Wednesday.

They said targeted ultrasound -- which examines just the area of the breast where a lump is identified -- should become the standard of care for women under 40.

The findings may address some of the concerns raised by a federal advisory panel about breast exams done by women or doctors to investigate lumps or hot spots in the breast, which most often turn out to be harmless.

In a controversial set of recommendations issued last month, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended that women not be taught to perform self breast exams because they often result in worry and expense for tests, biopsies and unnecessary surgery.

"That concerns us because while breast cancer in young women is rare, it absolutely does occur. Often, those cancers are only diagnosed because the woman noticed the lump in her breast or her doctor noticed a lump in her breast," said Dr. Constance Lehman of the University of Washington and director of imaging at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, who presented her findings at the Radiological Society of America meeting in Chicago.

"There are harms that follow after a woman does a self breast exam -- unnecessary surgeries, unnecessary biopsies. To that point, what we're saying is if you use imaging appropriately you can avoid those harms," Lehman said in a telephone interview.

Lehman did two studies testing the effectiveness of ultrasound to distinguish between potentially cancerous lumps and harmless masses in younger women.

In one, they studied more than 1,100 ultrasound exams of women under age 30. In the second, they studied 1,500 exams in women aged 30 to 39.

In both studies, ultrasound correctly identified the cancers and all of the benign breast changes. The only cancer not found was in a region of the breast that was not identified as an area of concern. Instead, it was identified by a full breast mammogram.

"Less than 3 percent of the patients that presented in this way had cancer. But it's important for us to find those patients that did have cancer," Lehman said.

"We had 26 women whose cancers were diagnosed because they brought the lump to the attention of their doctor, or their doctor brought the lump to the attention of the breast imaging specialist," she said.

Lehman said in the United States there is no standard way of treating women under age 40 who find a lump in their breast.

"Some of them go to the operating room to have the lump removed. Others have it followed. Others have a needle biopsy and we wanted to bring some clarity to this treatment," she said.

She said ultrasound is a quick and easy test that uses sound waves to create an image of the breast. It typically costs $100 to $200 per exam.

Lehman said using ultrasound could help balance some of the harms of overtreatment with the benefits of self breast exams in women under age 40, who are too young for routine mammogram screening even under the American Cancer Society guidelines.

The task force also recommended against routine mammogram screening for women in their 40s for many of the same reasons, a change the American Cancer Society and many other breast cancer experts reject.

When I lived abroad we women would form groups and pay a small monthly sum, say $20.00, into a fund. Each month the kitty would be rotated amongst the members. Granted, we used the money for personal things we couldn't normally afford, but something like that could benefit our BC sisters in need of extra funds for testing, supplements, etc.

The society was geared to support that sort of thing but it might work if you have trustworthy Bc sisters in your area.

 Oops. I meant $200.

Yeah, good question! It mentions the younger woman because the risk of having mammogram for a younger woman is higher. I am hoping that means that older women (myself included) will find ultrasounds as effective as younger women without the radiation. It would have been nice if they mentioned us women over 40!

I called around in my area for prices before having my Therm done and found that the going rate was $225 - $350 depending on the Doc and the services provided. I also inquired about the Abbreviations behind each persons name such as CTT, FIACT and so on.

One clinic, which is operated by 2 nurses, brought in different techs to perform the therms and sent the film out to be read by Docs. Another lab was run by a Chiro who was certified to perform the therms but not qualified to analyze or interpret them. That seems to be fairly normal. The Colorado clinic I refered to earlier even has their Therms sent out to another Doc for anaIysis and interpretation. Mine was a bit pricey but I had copies of my results within an hour after spending an hour with the Doc going over his findings as he also reads, certifies and reports Therms. As with any diagnostic testing, the results are only as good as the performance and interpretation. As someone mentioned earlier, hopefully the prices will decrease as the demand increases.

Vivre, here is some information for you:

Can you provide my organization with a speaker?

Yes, we certainly can. Simply contact us with a description of your organization (university, women's group, service club, etc.), and its location, and we would be glad to reply. Since we are frequently asked to speak on this important issue, please give us ample notice before the lecture in order for us to provide a speaker for you.

You can contact:

Pacific Chiropractic and Research Center
Infrared Imaging
621 Middlefield Road
Redwood City, California 94063

Phone: 650.361.8908
email: info@breastthermography.com

Clinic Director: William C. Amalu, DC, DABCT, DIACT, FIACT
Thermographic Technician: Janet Lyon, CTT

Here are some interesting articles:

Excerpt from http://www.iact-org.org/articles/articles-paradigm-shift.html

The initial use of thermography was for breast cancer screening and diagnosis. This was error. Thermography as a test of physiology is not capable of, and will never be capable of detecting breast cancer.

Anatomical testing such as mammography can also not detect breast cancer. This is a paradox. Both procedures, thermography and mammography, demonstrate abnormalities indicating the possibility of the presence of cancer, as well as a host of other breast conditions. These clinical findings require differential diagnosis.

ONLY laboratory confirmation of abnormal cell morphology can make the correct diagnosis of cancer.

And...... http://www.iact-org.org/articles/articles-second-look.html

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.

And from the same article:

Thermography was viewed as a possible early diagnostic tool for cancer. The reason I stated that this was error, is quite obvious, but almost totally overlooked by the clinicians and researchers of the day.

Thermography is a test of PHYSIOLOGY. It does not look at anatomy or structure, and it only reads the infra-red heat radiating from the surface of the body.

KEW, good grief!!

Wow KEW. I have never heard that before. If you do get the name of the study, please post it for us.

http://www.webmd.com/breast-cancer/news/20091202/breast-ultrasounds-spot-more-cancers

http://www.webmd.com/breast-cancer/news/20091202/test-may-reduce-unnecessary-breast-biopsies