Mammograms and breast cancer

AA, I believe that radiation is a double edged sword.  On the one hand, radiation helps us 'see' into the human body, to find problems and abnormalities.  And radiation has been proven to be effective at killing cancer cells.  But it's also known that radiation can cause abnormalities to develop within cells that can then lead to the development of cancer.  So is it possible that the cumulative exposure to radiation might over time cause some 'high risk' cells to develop into cancer?  Yes, I think that is a real risk.  And I wish we had better information about this.

I am less convinced that there is an issue with the compression from mammograms.  I know that when we have mammograms, it might feel like our breasts are really being squeezed and compressed, but in reality, I don't think that amount of quick pressure is going to do anything harmful to our breast tissue or the cells within our breast.  Not even cumulatively.  I don't think it's actually that much pressure.  I've been trying to find out how much pressure we get from the average mammogram, and best I can tell, it's about equivalent to the pressure level from wearing a strong compression stocking, but is probably less than the compression from a lymphedema sleeve.

Fallleaves, in the link from your earlier post,  http://www.pnas.org/content/109/3/911.full , there is no suggestion made that the type of mechanical compression they are applying is in any way similar to what we might get from a mammogram.  As I interpret the study, they were applying constant pressure directly to cell cultures in vitro (i.e. in a petri dish), over an extended period of time (16 hours) - and this is not what happens with a mammogram at all. So I don't think that we can use that study to say that mammograms can cause the development of cancer 'leader cells'.

In your more recent link, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20545607 , the article references that "cytokines interleukin-6 (IL-6), tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFalpha)
and interleukin-1 beta (IL-1beta) are critical mediators of the
inflammatory response".  So they are not talking about the artificial creation (through external pressure) of inflammation, but instead are talking about a biological process.

Edited for typos only.

Sierra, I think you should ask for an MRI.

Yes, there are many things that have yet to be studied and I hope that one day they will. Whether we are happy with the current state of affairs or not, that is all we have to base our medical decisions on at this time. This is reality, for better or worse, and many of us can't wait 10-20 years for new research to point us in a different direction.

Beesie, I certainly hope you make it to 77 (and far beyond), and sans any BC!

I think because it is just good at seeing certain things like cysts but not very good at others. It seems to me that it is used more to rule out than rule in. When they see stuff on mammograms they can confirm it is just a cyst with ultrasound, but I don't think it works or even shows, some solid lesions. On mine it can't even tell the difference between a cyst and a lymph node. They still didn't know until the core needle stuck it & it started collapsing.

All power to you Beesie! Couldn't agree more!

You're right!  The mammogram didn't save my life.  The information gained from getting the Mammogram and the steps taken afterwards may have saved my life. 

As recommended I had a mammogram four days after I turned 40 years old.  The mammogram, subsequent US and biopsy found and detected the Triple Negative IDC.  Armed with this info, I was able to make an informed decision on the course of treatment right for me.  Without a mammogram at 40 years old I would not have found the tumor (Stage 1 less than 1cm) which we know with TNBC can be fatal when undetected and allowed to continue to grow and spread.  I'm not concerned with possible radiation from a mammogram that could possibly cause cancer 20 years from now when I had an aggressive tumor that could jeapodize my future today.  I tell every woman I know who is approaching 40 years old or beyond to get their mammograms and to do self checks.  I believe this is the responsible thing to do.  Until other ways of detecting possible cancer (blood test etc) are invented, mammograms may and should be the first line of defense. 

Thanks for reading and God Bless everyone. 

I will probably not have another mammo, but don't blame anyone who does need the info.  I'm just more comfortable with uncertainty than most.  I got my first mammo last year in Nov and you may have guessed that it's the one that dx'ed it, but it wasn't even suspicious enough for an U/S.  The U/S didn't show anything either, but the rippling in my breast was worrisome enough to do the bx so they did and that's how I got dx'ed.  Had a thermogram and that didn't show anything either but one thing I heard about thermographically silent tumors is that they are probably not growing and therefore not putting out heat.  I have an aunt who had BC twice and both times the tumor showed up within a month after the mammo, both of which were negative.  One was very fast growing and the other had started into her chest wall.