I’ve done so much research for this blog and the more I read, the more I question whether it’s really an advantage to me.
8 years ago when I first found the lump that later tests would reveal was breast cancer, I’d had a mammogram a scant 5 months prior and it didn’t show a thing. How did it get from not showing up on a mammogram screening to a 2.5 cm lump in 5 months? Why didn’t the mammogram pick it up? Or did it really just “blow up” during those intervening (and stressful) months?
I really believe we need a test that detects the early signs of malignancy, ie what makes the cancer grow and become lethal. THAT’S what we really need.
Mammography leaves a lot to be desired, I think, especially when you consider the dose of radiation you get when having one. Plus there’s the problem of false positive tests needlessly traumatizing millions of women who are sent for unnecessary biopsies and other follow-up testing.
Fran Visco of the National Breast Cancer Coalition doesn’t think that pink ribbons and mammograms are the answer to ending breast cancer and I agree. She recently stated, “Mammography, or any imaging modality, will never be the answer to breast cancer. It has inherent limitations that cannot be overcome. It simply finds some cancers that already exist.” Which of course, we do want – early detection seems to be an important factor in surviving this disease. But they don’t necessarily save you.
The problem is that research shows that while the number of mammograms has dramatically increased in America, death rates have not dramatically decreased. The percentage of women aged 40 and older who reported having a mammogram rose from 29% in 1987 to 65% in 2008, according to the National Health Interview Survey. The mortality rate from breast cancer has decreased by an average of 2.2% per year from 1990 to 2008, according to the National Cancer Institute. That’s just not good enough!
There’s a very interesting article over at weeksmd.com entitled “Mammogram’s Role as Savior Is Tested“. Check it out.
For myself, I much prefer thermal imaging (see my page “What is Thermography” on the subject).
I don’t have health insurance though, and even if I did, it wouldn’t be covered. I believe thermal imaging is a much better diagnostic tool, but it’s not cheap, costing around $300. The reason I like it is that it is much safer (no radiation) and it can indicate where a problem area could be occurring long before a tumor develops due to the heat signature of developing blood vessels (called angiogenesis).
Still haven’t decided what to do. Your comments are invited.
If you’d like to stay connected, sign up for my free e-newsletters on the right, or “like” me on Facebook (MarnieClark.com) and I’ll do my utmost to keep you informed and empowered on your healing journey.