Alternatives to Mammography

Yes, I did but the name that comes up in NY and NJ is one that I have not heard good things about. I do see now that I look at it again there is another option. It is not close to me, but I can check him out! Thanks!

Angee, I know how you feel. The women here gave voice and validity to my decision to adopt an alternative approach to healing as it really seemed to be the road less traveled. I had no idea there were others out there like me. My MedOnc told me that everyone follows their protocol. Your Docs sound wonderful and a rare breed. Maybe they will join the call for safer more effective screening.

Springtime, my copy of Integrative Oncology arrived today. Thank you for the recommendation. 

Hi Seaotter,

As much as some people want to view thermography as an alternative to mammography,it just isn't so.  That's why you see those disclaimers at all the thermography sites.  At present, thermography is intended for use in addition to mammography, not instead of.   I just can't understand how pretty pictures and relative low cost and the fact that it doesn't HURT justify promoting a procedure that hasn't been shown to be an effective substitute???  Even the IACT says thermography is not intended to be a substitute for mammograms.  I'm excited about thermographic research and its potential, but as of now it's not recommended as a substitute.  Does anyone know of any current trials involving thermology?  I'd love to hear more and/or volunteer to participate.  As always, the more we know, the more we know!

Directly from the IACT (International Academy of Clinical Thermology):

=========QUOTE===========

Is Breast Thermography an Alternative to Mammography?

In response to the growing confusion regarding the current accepted role of thermography for use in breast cancer screening and detection, the International Academy of Clinical Thermology issues the following position statement:

The proper role of thermography is not as a replacement for mammography.

Breast thermography is a complementary screening and detection procedure, which when added to a woman's breast health examination substantially increases the sensitivity in detecting pathologies associated with the breast. As a unique physiological examination procedure, breast thermography is the only known test that can also serve as an early warning system by identifying women who have high-risk pre-cancerous infrared imaging markers. The procedure can also play a role in prognosis and as a method of assisting in monitoring the effects of treatment.

Why Thermography is Not a Replacement for Mammography

* There is no one test that can detect 99-100% of all cancers. Therefore, no single test exists that can be used alone as an adequate screening or detection method for breast cancer.

* A physiological imaging procedure (thermography) cannot replace an anatomical imaging procedure (mammography). The two tests are "looking" for completely different pathological processes.

* Thermography is far more sensitive than mammography. However, some slow growing non-aggressive cancers will only be detected by mammography.

=======END QUOTE===========

Please excuse if this link has already been posted. I may have missed a few posts over the past few weeks: 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2008/0810-sound_detects_breast_cancer.htm

Physicists Develop Ultrasound Alternative To Mammograms

AND

Biochemists Develop Proteomic Test For Breast Cancer

Hi Nan,

Is this the RSNA article you were looking for?  Unfortunately it's not nearly as simple an equation as "mammography screening causes cancer."  The title of the article is actually

" Mammography May Increase Breast Cancer Risk in Some High-Risk Women"

http://www.rsna.org/Media/rsna/RSNA09_newsrelease_target.cfm?id=446

It's an interesting article and a critical thing to be researching, but in the end, the article concludes :

====QUOTE=======

In general, early detection with mammography and prompt treatment can significantly improve a woman's chances of survival. More than 90 percent of women whose breast cancer is found in an early stage will survive. For young, high-risk women and their doctors, it is important to weigh the benefits against any potential risk when making a decision about annual breast cancer screening with mammography. 

Oh no, don't get me wrong - it scares me too!  I was just pointing out that

"mammography may increase risk in some women" doesn't translate to "mammography causes breast cancer."

I'm definitely banking on researchers eventually coming up with a true viable alternative to mammography, but at the moment, none of our screening methods are perfect "alternatives" and all have their shortcomings. 

I'm now at high risk too, and just turned 40 but I won't have to decide on another mammogram (I only had one - the one I was diagnosed with), since I had a double mastectomy.  The best I can hope for is that some of the current research will pan out for my friends and family and children so they will have a reliable alternative to mammograms.

Thanks Nan.

I heard that story this morning on NPR. I listened as I was driving to my radiation appointment.

When they said, "people are getting more radiation than we thought" I just about turned my car around. 

Let us know how that goes. I looked at my tongue today and it is BLUE! I never noticed before you mentioned it. YIKES!

Crunchy,

(Quote)...

I have a bit of cynicism in thinking that the mammography industry would never admit that it outright DOES cause cancer unless forced to by law.

As I posted on another bc site....that won't happen in my lifetime. With all these cancer foundations heavily vested in the mammography industry...not a chance!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hi Crunchy,

I'm really not trying to be argumentative.  It's really interesting to me how differently people can see things, and I enjoy the rational discussion.

You said,  "...that's like saying 'smoking may increase the risk of lung cancer in some people' as opposed to "smoking causes lung cancer."

To me, that's comparing apples to oranges since the link between smoking and lung cancer has been qualitatively proven.  As of now, there is increasing evidence that excess radiation may increase some people's risk of cancer in the future.  That's very different from statistics from the American Cancer Society, that say half of all Americans who continue to smoke WILL DIE from it, and cigarette smoking accounts for at least 30% of all cancer deaths.   http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2X_Cigarette_Smoking.asp?sitearea=PED

Is it just semantics, or is there a real difference?  I think there's a real difference, both qualitatively and quantitatively. I'm so glad these studies are getting more attention; hopefully that will translate into the development of better/more efficient/safer screening methods.  Even in the article Nan linked to above about CT radiation dangers, the author advises us to ask our doctors about safer methods of screening. The trouble is, CTs and mammograms are the best we have currently available.

I disagree that the mammogram industry will never admit to causing cancer.  I think it will be forced by science rather than law.  There is a lot of research going on about this issue, and hopefully the mammography industry will roll with the movement toward safer screening rather than drowning in the sea of denial.  

I just think it's much more of a gray area (no pun intended, haha!) than black and white.  Don't radiologists, mammographers, oncologists, ACS, etc., concede the potential danger of radiation and agree that the subject warrants further study?  I think they (and we) just do the best with what we have currently.