- NEWS
- SPORTS
- BUSINESS
- ENTERTAINMENT
- LIFE
- TRAVEL
- OPINION
I’m not buying this mammogram recommendation
November 17th, 2009, 9:48 am · 26 Comments · posted by Theresa Walker, Editor
I don’t know about you, but I personally know of several friends and colleagues under the age of 50 who were diagnosed with breast cancer. Some through self-exam, but most because of a mammogram.
That’s why I’m not buying the recommendation of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force that women wait until they are 50 to get an annual mammogram.
According to news reports, the task force came to the conclusion that risk of breast cancer is low in women ages 40 to 50. And that routine mammogram might needlessly expose that age group to false positives and complications from biopsies or other invasive procedures to detect breast cancer.
Sorry, I’m not in agreement. And neither is the American Cancer Society, along with most oncologists. Nor are breast cancer survivors in Orange County and doctors here who treat women with breast cancer.
I hope insurance companies won’t run with this recommendation and start making it harder for women to get a mammogram.
How about you, do you agree with this recommendation?
Reader Comments
Comments are encouraged, but you must follow our User Agreement.- Keep it civil and stay on topic.
- No profanity, vulgarity, racial slurs or personal attacks.
- People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.
26 Comments
-
ADVERTISEMENT
-
The Mom Bloggers
Click on a photo to read recent posts by:
Also on the Mom Blog: local family events, interesting mom-related news and more -
-
-
-
-
16th annual People's Choice
From your favorite restaurants and shops to the best day spa in town, here are your choices for the number one places to eat, shop and play in O.C.
Browse the 2009 Best of Orange County winners -
ADVERTISEMENT
I saw that yesterday and I have very mixed feelings. We don’t know enough yet about breast cancer to stop screening. And really, I’ll take a biopsy or other invasive procedure if it can keep my tatas in good health. I have a good friend who has had several growths removed starting at age 25. On the other hand, maybe every other year screening is enough? That’s something I don’t know. But, I too hope the insurance companies don’t use this one study as a reason to cut the screening. It would be a typical action on their part of course and the cynic in me sadly would not be surprised if they took it.
Ultimately, I hope that someday we will know enough about breast cancer to know when and how best to detect it, even better, how to prevent it.
What would be a good age?
Rest assured insurance companies don’t change at the result of a single study. You have nothing to worry about, just media hype. Gotta have something to blog about afterall.
Is this just the beginning of “ObamaCare”?
“No Ladies…You don’t need that Mammo for ANOTHER ten years”
This recommendation comes out RIGHT AFTER my own doctor was asking why I had not had a Mammo recently and that all studies indicate early warning signs and testing prevent full blown invasive breast cancer.
But who cares? all the REAL money for drug testing and guidelines is going for drugs that “Help Men stay VITAL LONGER”…(This post would not even let me put the brand names of these drugs up, are they such a dirty word that they can’t be printed?) SHEESH!
Funny…but if a man had his testicles squished into a machine you can bet a “New” way of testing would have already been discovered.
Watch out people…this is just the beginning, this recommendation is from the “U.S. Preventive Services Task Force” that kind of sounds like a GOVERNMENT agency to me!
Most of the studies that look into drugs for men to stay vital longer are funded by private companies - the companies that make the drugs. The government didn’t even want to pay for V iagra when it first came out because it’s a lifestyle drug, not a life saving drug.
However I agree that if a man had to undergo anything similar to a mammogram on his testicles, another form of testing would probably have been developed!
I got a mammogram relatively young, at 38, mostly because my grandmother had breast cancer. The doctor at the time told me the exam was likely premature but the good news was twofold: Now I have a baseline test to which future exams can be compared, and the results were negative. I’ll probably have another mammogram at 45, depending on what my doc says …
My mother had breast cancer at 28 and it went untreated for several years because the doctors thought she was too young to have breast cancer and that it was a false positive. She ended up losing a breast and having to go through some serious bouts of chemo - lost her hair, the whole nine yards. I’m thankful she at least lived through it, but I never want to go through that and fought to start getting mammograms at 30.
I’ve seen the articles on this study and it’s ridiculous. I’m glad to see cancer oriented groups are fighting against these recommendations.
A couple years ago there was an article in Redbook on cancer survivors. I noted that nearly every woman interviewed had cancer under the age of 45. I would like to think that most women would agree that they are fine with the “inconvienence” of having extra tests if it means saving the lives of one of our sisters or mothers or friends.
My hackles were raised when I heard this. What kind of “task force” has more information than the American Cancer Society?
Color me suspicious, but the timing on this is uncanny, what with the govt. intervention of our healthcare services, this just sounds like a cheap way to cut costs at the expense of American women.
I just had a 12 image thermography (thermogram imaging in color as well as black&white) from Dr. Cockburn in Downey.
Done by a qualified physician with proper training, it can find things of concern long before a mammogram.
Indeed if this procedure was available in every doctor’s office,
it would probably mean that 80% of the needle biopsies done today are unnecessary.
I was diagnosed with breast cancer at age 37 because of a mammogram. They caught it early and I was successfully treated. I know the specific language says “annual mammogram after 50″ but most women will skim that and think they don’t even need one until 50. Due to my personal experience, they need to move the baseline recommendation down from 40 to 35. Early diagnosis can been the difference between life and death. I’m hoping this “task force” recommendation will be debunked quickly.
I had breast cancer at 48 and thankfully at 52 am writing this post. My husband first discovered the lump, which was pretty large and the cancer had spread to my lymph nodes. I can understand why they are saying that under 50 is too young, because even now my breasts are still pretty dense and difficult to scan. I think this really underscores the importance of knowing your own breasts and conducting self exams. Those that have increased risk should definitely have ultrasounds as well as Mammograms starting at 40. Overall the most important thing to understand is that all women are susceptible to breast cancer, no matter if you have increased risk factors or hereditary risk. Most breast cancer patients (70 to 80%) do not have breast cancer in their family. If I can get cancer, a woman who breast fed all four kids, has no family history, and has no known risk factors, you can too!
I had my 1st mammogram at age 40. Turned out that I had 2 seperate cancer cells growing & I was at Stage 1 already with a spread starting to my lymph nodes. It’s not a worry to lose a breast ( I gave mine willingly), it’s a life you can lose. It’s been 8 yrs now. Early detection decreases the risk of death. Imagine if I waited another 10 yrs to get a mamo? If I survived that long. In the past 8 years, I have had 5 friends diagnosed with BC. 4 of those 5 were under 50. 2 of those friends have died. I miss them everyday.
This “study” is one of the most reckless things I’ve seen in my life.
My wife would either be very sick or worse today if not for a so-called “early” mammogram.
She was diagnosed with breast cancer about a year ago, had surgery in January, did chemo from March to June and endured radiation in Aug. and Sept. Now, she’s taking a drug, feeling good and, long-term, hoping for the best. She’s 48. It had been 18 months between mammograms when her cancer was discovered.
I’m sure there are medical issues that make this a debatable point. And I make no claim to understand the counter argument.
(Likewise, I don’t understand people who want to turn this - and every other instant of life on Earth - into anti-Obama politicking. There is, at this point, zero evidence to suggest Obama has anything to do with the timing of mammograms…. )
But I do know this: A mammogram saved the coolest person I know before she turned 50. If there’s an argument against the timing on this, that argument had better be about something other than money.
I have not seen any arguments for why women should not get screened, except that they might get “unnecessary” treatment and that many women have “anxiety” or get “stressed out” by tests and self exams.
By that logic, shall we forgo all forms of preventative care? Going to get my annual pap stresses me out and sometimes results in false positives and unnecessary tests - shall I skip that, too? How about shots or dental appointments? Those really stress me out.
Personally I’d be alot more stressed about worrying I’m going to discover a lump far too late, than having the peace of mind knowing I’ve got test results that say I’m cancer free from less than 12 months ago.
I had the best OB-GYN….he started ordering mammograms for his patients at the age of 35 and didn’t take NO for an answer from the insurance companies. And that was back in the l980’s.
When my OBGYN found out about my family history, she argued with my insurance company and their local testing facility until they let me get a mammogram at 29. Thank goodness there are doctors that actually care about their patients.
I decided I needed a mammogram at 36 and my doctor was nice enough to fight the insurance company for me. I had two forms of Breast Cancer, one of which would have never formed a lump it just make a aggressive run for other organs. I continued my yearly mammograms and Breast Cancer was found again at 42. I have no one in my family with Breast Cancer, in good health, I don’t carry the gene for Breast Cancer so I would have been someone who these new guidelines will end up not covering for a mammogram. But I guess under the new Obama Healthcare guidelines saving money on my mammograms would be worth my life. What bother me is the Gov is going to force you to pay for healthcare but not let you use it.
I’m also very disappointed to read about this. Is it that insurance companies don’t want to pay for mammograms anymore, so voila, the government says they aren’t needed until 50? So what about sonograms? I am concerned about this and the government is being irresponsible by suggesting this. How many people will die from undiagnosed breast cancer? I’ll be 40 in a few years and am not looking forward to painful mammograms, but I don’t want cancer!
I’m from canada and our health care system is a little different.
Up here many Dr.’s talk about ‘early’ mammogram’s and screening, in fact, throughout our province (I’m in BC) there are mobile screenings that go from city to city, so no matter what your medical plan…a mammogram is encouraged.
I’m 39…and had my first earlier this year when in a routine Dr.’s appointment lumps were found in both breasts. Tests came back in good form, but am still considering mastectomies…as my grandmother had two because of ‘recurring lumps’ which did not ease up until she had surgery.
Perhaps the states should have a similar policy where “mammogram clinics” can be incorporated no matter what your insurance policy!
A mobile mammogram screening when we have first class hospitals, is that what are to expect from Healthcare Reform? Sorry no thanks, I hope every women realizes that her healthcare will be reduced to lining up at the 3rd rate clinics and hope the person reading your mammograms isn’t making $10 hr. The last thing I would have wanted to do is go to a mobile clinic in a strip mall and hope for the best. If this is what our government is going to offer us, I hope Mrs Obama is in line with me.
Not everybody lives in a place where there are first-class hospitals. Or can afford them. So mobile mammogram screening just might save their lives.
I would suggest anyone angry with the guideline changes to write the U.S. Preventive Task Force and voice your opinion - as together we have a greater voice and a better chance of being heard - because these suggested changes are dangerous and should be quashed before medical insurance companies adopt their findings, which is the next step.
To write a letter, voice your concern or share your story - send it to them via their Website at:
http://www.ahrq.gov/CLINIC/uspstfix.htm
Because together we can take action and make things happen!
Thanks for the link to the Task Force. It’s so easy to check things out on the Internet; I wish more readers would do a little homework before jumping to conclusions. FYI, according to its web site the Task Force has been around for 20+ years, and the members are from hospitals and universities around the country. We need to make informed choices and decisions!
Thanks for the link pjpr72, maybe if enough women who had cancer under 50 tell their story they will see that we are more than a number and we deserve a chance to live.
The new recommendations are not being well-reported, and your blog entry is also missing the point. These new recommendations do not apply to women with a family history or elevated risk factors. That is what the panel said, and that is not being reported.
Having a family history or elevated risk factors definitely puts you in a different category than other women. But my point is that lots of women who don’t have a family history or other risk factors benefit from having a mammogram before they turn 50. The friends and colleagues I referred to in my post who have or had breast cancer were not women with those risk factors. They were all under 50.