Mammograms

[PrettySquareGal]

I think I was an A the first few times I had one and it felt like they were trying to pull the skin from my back around to the front just to have something to put in the vice! It does vary according to the technician. Some tighten the vice just one more notch than others. Almost all of the technicians are very sympathetic and try to get it over with quickly. The whole thing (both sides) is over in just a few minutes. So, yes it hurts, but just for several seconds at a time and not enough to make you cry. Yes you have to go!

I actually cried, it was that bad for me. Not looking for sympathy, but just being honest about how it was for me.

 

[Fleur De Guerre]

My mum is an A cup and just went for one last week, she also said she couldn't believe how much it hurt when they tried to squish her ****s into the machine! I don't know how it would work for me since I have implants, though who knows whether I'll still have them at 40, or if they will have changed. Thing is, I have so little natural tissue there I don't know if there is any point me ever having a mammogram while my implants are in. I think I'd know if a lump was growing - it'd be very obvious to both see and feel.

 

[Smuterella]

I haven't had one yet, I'm almost 30 so don't "need" one as such. My girlfriends best friend is just getting over ****** cancer though and its certainly made me more aware.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

My mum is an A cup and just went for one last week, she also said she couldn't believe how much it hurt when they tried to squish her ****s into the machine! I don't know how it would work for me since I have implants, though who knows whether I'll still have them at 40, or if they will have changed. Thing is, I have so little natural tissue there I don't know if there is any point me ever having a mammogram while my implants are in. I think I'd know if a lump was growing - it'd be very obvious to both see and feel.

Unfortunately implants make ****** cancer harder to detect:

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/******-implants/AN00419

"****** implants may decrease the ability of mammograms to reveal ****** cancer, because implants can obscure the image of a tumor. Still, studies show that mammograms are an effective way to screen for ****** cancer in women with ****** implants."

 

[Fleur De Guerre]

Oh, yes I have read the same info, but it's just that I have so little ****** tissue, which has now been stretched even thinner, that if a tumour was growing in my ******, I think it would physically show while it was still very small.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

Oh, yes I have read the same info, but it's just that I have so little ****** tissue, which has now been stretched even thinner, that if a tumour was growing in my ******, I think it would physically show while it was still very small.

It sounds like, though, that cancer can grow underneath the implants. I don't know. I wouldn't risk not getting recommended exams. It's worth looking into!

 

[Fleur De Guerre]

Ooh blimey, didn't think of that. Well I have a few years till I'll be having one...I'll definitely go when they start.

 

[texasgirl]

I had one last year at 35. They are now recommending the first one at that age. That way when you go back at 40, they have something to compare. I am fairly large, FF and it was uncomfortable, but not really painful. I didn't think it was that bad at all. So maybe size does change the pain level. But I am glad I had it done. And my insurance covered it at that age, so those of you in the 35-39 range might want to check it out.

 

[KittyT]

How about "No, because I'm not old enough to need them yet"? My grandmother died of ****** cancer though, so I do realize the importance of self-exams, mammograms, and early detection.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

How about "No, because I'm not old enough to need them yet"? My grandmother died of ****** cancer though, so I do realize the importance of self-exams, mammograms, and early detection.

I didn't think to add that option at the time. I should have.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

I haven't had one yet. I always wonder how squishing the daylights out of tissue could NOT harm the tissue and perhaps cause other issues in the long run. I wish they'd come up with something new. Alas, I will still go when it's time, which isn't long now as I'm 36.
Nikki

It's a good question!

 

[PrettySquareGal]

What do you all think about this?

http://www.naturalnews.com/010886.html

 

[AmateisGal]

What do you all think about this?

http://www.naturalnews.com/010886.html

Goodness. A lot of this article makes sense, especially the part about cancer cells spreading due to squeezing the ******.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

Goodness. A lot of this article makes sense, especially the part about cancer cells spreading due to squeezing the ******.

It does! Some of the article may be quack medicine but some of it not! Since yesterday I've been obsessively googling this stuff and I am finding many surprises. I want to make informed choices! Of course I always make sure the sources are reputable and verifiable.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

http://www.webmd.com/******-cancer/news/20031014/does-mammogram-risk-outweigh-benefit

"If you truly look at the benefit to be obtained for women in the 40-49 age group, it is very small and takes a long time," Baines says. "It is a 9% decrease in cancer deaths after 16 years."

Meanwhile, she notes, the risk of death from ****** cancer in the third year of screening is more than twice as high for women who get mammograms as for women who don't.

And:

How could mammograms cause ****** cancer? Baines doesn't think it's the mammograms themselves. Women who get screened find small tumors sooner. This leads to earlier surgery. Some of these tumors might not really be dangerous. But removing them might be, animal studies suggest

 

[Laughing Magpie]

Re: mammograms cause cancer:

Research like this can be very difficult to compare. Mammograms lead to earlier diagnosis and treatment and lower ****** cancer mortality... even if the radiation involved is raising the risk of cancer, overall it may still balance out in favor of using mammograms. Same with the squishing. Until there's a better way to screen and get to an earlier diagnosis (and I agree, we totally need a better way!) then mammograms are the only proven* (as in reducing mortality) method of screening.

I have to admit I couldn't get through that article because even if there's something to what it says, and there are good ideas for further research in there, I found it a bit sensationalist and made claims without evidence.

Jen

*This might or have already changed. I'm an MD and I actually work with people with inherited causes of cancer from time to time, but I don't keep up to the minute . I'm hoping they prove that MRI can take the place of mammography (though, as I said earlier, personally I would much rather have a mammogram! Getting a ****** MRI was one of the worst hours I've had to spend in my life!)

 

[PrettySquareGal]

Re: mammograms cause cancer:

Research like this can be very difficult to compare. Mammograms lead to earlier diagnosis and treatment and lower ****** cancer mortality... even if the radiation involved is raising the risk of cancer, overall it may still balance out in favor of using mammograms.

I have to admit I couldn't get through that article because even if there's something to what it says, and there are good ideas for further research in there, I found it a bit sensationalist and made claims without evidence.

Jen

I agree, although the WebMD article makes sense to me as far as mammograms for women in their 40's.

 

[Laughing Magpie]

Oh! *goes to read the WebMD article!*

I was responding to the Natural News article. I like that WebMD one. That's my understanding as well - our screening methods for ****** cancer are pretty poor, and mammograms have only been proven to reduce mortality in specific groups. I think they've also recently found self-exam made no difference to mortality either. And having personally been run through the mill of investigations for what was likely a 'false positive', I know all to well that particular drawback.

It's all pretty depressing in a way. But I'd still go along with my mammograms if that's what my doctor suggests.

Jen

 

[PrettySquareGal]

Oh! *goes to read the WebMD article!*

I was responding to the Natural News article. I like that WebMD one. That's my understanding as well - our screening methods for ****** cancer are pretty poor, and mammograms have only been proven to reduce mortality in specific groups. I think they've also recently found self-exam made no difference to mortality either. And having personally been run through the mill of investigations for what was likely a 'false positive', I know all to well that particular drawback.

It's all pretty depressing in a way. But I'd still go along with my mammograms if that's what my doctor suggests.

Jen

I understand.

I never really did my own investigating until now. I had no idea about a lot of the risks and limitations.

 

[deadpandiva]

I had one. It sort of hurt but only because I had two large lumps (benign) already. The Mammogram was nothing compaired to the needle biopsy though.