Strange thought about aftercare

Options
angicpa
angicpa Member Posts: 67
edited June 2014 in Life After Breast Cancer

I'm finally through the chemo, surgery, radiation, herceptin, just a daily tamoxifen pill. I've even had a hair cut...Yay!!!!

As far as being told we don't do follow up scans because it hasn't proved to extend life, we wait for symptons...fine if that's the way "the game is played" - although my onc did say he would order them if I wanted, ,just that insurance wouldn't pay.

BUT - isn't that the opposite premise of getting an annual mammogram? I just can't reconcile the two.  Either tests for early detection are beneficial or they're not. 

My tumor was originally found by my husband not a mammo. In my specific circumstances, I believe I would have had the same treatment if the mammo had picked it up before we could feel it. 

 So, why have a mammo for early detection if they don't do scans for early detection?

· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • Fearless_One
    Fearless_One Member Posts: 3,300
    edited September 2010

    My doctors all said I need to be scanned every 6 months.   So far insurance has not denied anything.  

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • dlb823
    dlb823 Member Posts: 9,430
    edited September 2010

    I think the answer is, if it's found a 2nd time in the breast, which is still outside the body cavity, there are treatment options to completely eradicate it from the breast.  If it's found elsewhere (bones, liver, brain, etc.), then the feeling is the horse is out of the barn, so to speak, and nothing will totally put it back in the barn, so the game plan becomes living with it, and whether it's found pre or post symptoms makes little difference.

    It's a great question though, and I'm wondering if there have been any studies to support the current thinking of no scans unless a patient is symptomatic.  Would we possibly be better off finding a metastasis before any symptoms, and could remissions be attained more easily if it was found that much earlier?    Deanna

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited September 2010

    Because, if they can find it early enough with a mammo, and it is still confined to breast tissue, they can "cure" it.  In that case, finding it sooner can make the difference between cure or not.

    They don't scan for metastasis because once it is out of the breast, they treat the symptoms, and may even attempt to reduce the size of a tumor, but they don't expect to cure anyone.  It doesn't make a real difference in outcome if you catch metastasis early.

    The thing is, whatever triggered the cancer in the first place still happened to you.  If there is any breast tissue left (and even in a bilateral MX there may be some) a new primary cancer could form, and if that happened, you would want to catch that ASAP.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • angicpa
    angicpa Member Posts: 67
    edited September 2010

    Thanks everyone.  It makes sense when you all put it that way.  I just couldn't think it through the way the onc & nurse explained it. So now I can reconcile having a mammo even though they say no scans.  I'm still not sure I agree with no scans, but since I just finished Herceptin in August, I feel like I have some time to either come to terms with that, or request them and pay for them myself if insurance won't cover them.

    These discussion boards have been a life raft to me.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Categories