Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Breast Cancer / December 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Study: Mammogram every other year may be enough

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
DeliciousLaugh - 16 Dec 2004 15:52 GMT
Study: Mammogram every other year may be enough
Most countries in Europe recommend every two years
Wednesday, December 15, 2004 Posted: 11:33 AM EST (1633 GMT)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Every other year may be enough for women over 50 to
have a mammogram, U.S. researchers said on Tuesday.

A study of nearly 8,000 women showed that those who let a two-year interval
slip in between mammograms were no more likely to have advanced cancer if they
did develop a tumor than women who had mammograms every year.

But in women in their 40s, when cancer may be more aggressive, there was a
higher risk that when a tumor was detected it would already be at an advanced
stage.

"Mammography screening may reduce breast cancer mortality by detecting cancers
at an earlier stage," Emily White of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
in Seattle and colleagues wrote in their report, published in the Journal of
the National Cancer Institute.

"However, certain questions remain, including the ideal interval between
mammograms," they added.

They studied women to see if those who only had mammograms every other year
were more likely to have advanced cancer when diagnosed. They compared 2,440
women who had been diagnosed with breast cancer after a two-year interval
between mammograms with 5,400 women diagnosed with breast cancer after a yearly
scan.

"In summary, we found little evidence that indicates that women who undergo
mammography screening every 2 years have an increased risk of late-stage breast
cancer compared with women who undergo annual screening, except for women in
their 40s," they wrote.

"However, because breast cancer incidence among women aged 40 to 49 years is
less than half that among women 50 years of age or older, the benefit of annual
screening for younger women is small and the cost per year of life saved is
high," they added.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends mammograms every one to two
years while the American Cancer Society recommends every year.

In Europe, most countries recommend that women be screened every two years and
concentrate their recommendations on women age 50 and older.

About 1.2 million people a year are diagnosed with breast cancer globally and
the disease kills 40,000 women and men in the United States every year.
SssynSmrt - 16 Dec 2004 19:04 GMT
If I had not at a yearly mammogram beginning at age 50, my cancer that was
diagnosed at age 51 would have been far larger and more invasive. The skill of
the radiologist enabled him to see the extremely small subtle change from the
prior year's film.

If I had waited two years, there would most likely have been far more lymph
node involvement.  Instead of microscopice metasteses in one node, who knows
how far it would have spread?

I don't understand why we're still debating a great diagnostic tool that does
catch early stage breast cancer.  
Mary Fisher - 16 Dec 2004 20:07 GMT
> If I had not at a yearly mammogram beginning at age 50, my cancer that was
> diagnosed at age 51 would have been far larger and more invasive. The
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> does
> catch early stage breast cancer.

Not all of us are. I support annual mammograms.

Mary
Kaye301 - 17 Dec 2004 14:24 GMT
<< I don't understand why we're still debating a great diagnostic tool that
does
catch early stage breast cancer.  

Other tools -- such as MRI --are proving to be much more effective for
detecting early b.c., particularly for those at  high risk.
SssynSmrt - 17 Dec 2004 21:11 GMT
>Other tools -- such as MRI --are proving to be much more effective for
>detecting early b.c., particularly for those at  high risk.

But Kaye, I was not at high risk!  No one I've met who has had breast cancer
was considered "high risk".  

Mammograms are very cost effective as well.  I can't see that insurance
companies would be all that excited about the use of MRI's as a diagnostic tool
when there is a cheaper alternative.
Kaye301 - 19 Dec 2004 15:59 GMT
<< sssynsmrt@aol.com >><BR><BR>
Kaye301 - 19 Dec 2004 16:04 GMT
SssynSmrt@aol.com wrote <<But Kaye, I was not at high risk!  No one I've met
who has had breast cancer
was considered "high risk".  >>

And I was one who was VERY high risk  who DID have regular mammos, and the
cancer was missed so that by the time I was dx'd 9 mos. after supposed last
normal mammo I had 3 types of very aggressive advanced breast cancer.

<<Mammograms are very cost effective as well.  I can't see that insurance
companies would be all that excited about the use of MRI's as a diagnostic tool
when there is a cheaper alternative.>>

At this point they would be more cost effective since so much has gone into
purchasing them and making them available and training technicians.  A point is
reached where the cost of implementing newer, more effective techniques is
almost prohibitive, despite the fact that if it were done many more lives would
probably be saved.
Tim Jackson - 17 Dec 2004 16:03 GMT
> I don't understand why we're still debating a great diagnostic tool that does
> catch early stage breast cancer.  

Because it also carries risks.  Every mammogram increases your total
radiation dose, and so increases the tiny risk of it -causing- a cancer.
 So there is a balance to be struck, the odds aren't all on one side.

Tim Jackson
Kaye301 - 17 Dec 2004 14:23 GMT
<< Study: Mammogram every other year may be enough

I guess one can twist or bend the stats to go in whatever favor is desired.  I
did the yearly mammos (although 18 mos for last) and it was  missed.  Sure, I
had the main type that supposedly doesn't show up on a mammo--but within days
of that mammo I had a significant hardened area.  I was dissed when I showed my
ob-gyn a few days later.  An ultrasound, at the least, should have been
ordered.  In addition, the mammo done 18 months before that had had
calcifications.  Just because one has a regular mammo doesn't mean that it is
read correctly.  I wonder what % have experienced that...
Mary Fisher - 17 Dec 2004 21:22 GMT
> << Study: Mammogram every other year may be enough
>
> I guess one can twist or bend the stats to go in whatever favor is
> desired.

Indeed.

Mary
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.