ilena

Note from Ilena: Mammograms are known to rupture implants with unknown
frequency, as well as requiring more radiation each time a mammogram
is taken.


Implants may interfere with mammogram results


http://www.reutershealth.com/archive/2004/01/27/eline/links/20040127elin003.htm

NEW YORK - Breast implants make it harder to detect breast cancer with
a
mammogram, new study findings suggest.

But even though mammography is less accurate in women with breast
implants,
this does not mean that women with implants are at greater risk of
being
diagnosed with more advanced cancer, researchers say. In fact, tumors
were of
similar size and stage in women with and without implants.

The bottom line for women with breast implants is that they should
continue
to have mammograms as recommended but should be aware that mammography
is less
sensitive for them, lead author Dr. Diana L. Miglioretti of the Group
Health
Cooperative in Seattle, Washington, told Reuters Health.

She advised women to let the mammography staff know that they have
implants
so that they can undergo additional screening using a technique called
implant
displacement views, which shifts the implant out of the way to provide
a
better view of breast tissue.

Women with implants, along with other women, should be sure to contact
a
physician if they detect a lump or other problem with their breasts,
Miglioretti
stressed.

The radiation used in mammography is blocked to some degree by breast
implants, so there has been concern that implants may interfere with
the ability to
detect breast cancer. The scientific evidence has not been conclusive,
however.


One problem is that many studies were conducted before mammograms were
used
widely and before radiologists began using implant displacement views.

In the new study, Miglioretti's team analyzed data from seven U.S.
mammogram
registries. The researchers examined the accuracy of mammograms in
women with
breast cancer - 141 women with implants and more than 20,000 without
them - as
well as in women without breast cancer - more than 10,000 women with
implants
and over 101,000 without implants.

Among women who did not have symptoms of breast cancer at the time of
a
mammogram, the screen missed 55 percent of breast cancer cases in
women with breast
implants compared with 33 percent of women who did not have the
implants, the
researchers report in Wednesday's issue of the Journal of the American
Medical Association.

But women with breast implants were slightly less likely to receive
false-positive mammogram results than women without implants.

Moreover, even though women with implants were less likely to have
their
breast cancer show up on a mammogram, on average they were not
diagnosed with more
advanced cancer than women without implants.

In fact, among women who were diagnosed with breast cancer after
experiencing
symptoms, such as a lump or discharge from the nipple, women with
implants
tended to be diagnosed with less advanced cancer.

It may be easier for women with implants to detect cancers that are
missed on
a mammogram, according to Miglioretti. They often have less of their
own
breast tissue, she noted, or it could be that the implant provides a
firm surface
to press breast tissue against.

Also, women with implants may be more likely to detect lumps in their
breasts
if they check their breasts often for signs of trouble with an implant
or if
they are more body conscious than other women, according to
Miglioretti.

SOURCE: Journal of the American Medical Association, January 28, 2004.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.org

ilena

Hi Ilena

I just want to add that mammograms are not always accurate period.
A client of mine with no implants was diagnosed with breast cancer and after
her breast was removed it was founded that she did not have breast cancer
after all. It is a must to get another opinion always with any test not
just mammograms

judy

So what? Just because we are women one must take it for granted we are
"stupid" too?
A lot of this is just good old common sense.

And as for mammograms being more inaccurate for women with
implants.....well... I think the ratio on the accuracy for mammos on ALL
women stinks! Since I have been diagnosed with bc after "my" mammo
said I was fine, I can't tell you how many other women I have spoken or


I know all the great reasons some of you can come up with to justify
women still having mammograms but I personally think they are a waste of
time and money. This so called great nation of ours (the USA) needs to
come up with a better way to help women detect their cancers ahead of
time. I don't have the answer to what should be used but isn't that
what those researchers get paid to find out? Instead they just pretend
all is well with the mammograms and let us go merrily into the night
thinking we are cancer free when all the while the monster is growing in
us. Wow! I am sounding like Su-Texas today. Must be those Tamoxifens
having a reaction on me.<g

Bea

l bucciarelli

women still having mammograms but I personally think they are a waste of
time and money.

Sorry, Bea, I really disagree with you strongly on this one. A mammogram
caught tumors in both my mother and myself. Hers was detected about 18
years ago, I was diagnosed 8 years ago. Much has to do with the ability of
the radiologists who read the pictures.

I'm eternally grateful that we were having yearly mammograms. Neither of us
might be around today if we had not had these tests.

....lisa

Lisa, I am very happy that the mammograms worked for you and your
mother. I know they do work for "some" people and that is the reason
they will probably be the first test of choice by the cancer industry
and doctors.

I don't know if it is the test itself or radiologists who should be
working at Burger King instead but something needs to be done about the
problem of the test results not being given accurately to the patient
and doctor. I think my bc could have and "should" have been caught
years ago when it was much smaller if the test and/or the radiologist
had been more accurate. I never missed a year having the mammogram but
a lot of good it did me. But.....it's a cheaper test so it will stay
around and if "some" are helped by it then it it worth it for them.

Bea

tim jackson

Bea, no-one is pretending all is well with mammograms, we know they have
lots of false positives and false negatives, and they expose healthy tissues
to radiation. But they are the best we have for mass screening in terms of
cost effectiveness, availability and side effects. Researchers are working
on other tests, but none has yet reached an accuracy, reliability and
availability where it could be used for mass screening.

I know that some studies have suggested that there is little benefit in the
screening programs, but the consensus is still that it is better than not
screening, and that the answers obtained by the studies depend rather
critically on exactly what question is being asked and how benefits are
assessed.


Tim Jackson

alexandra koffman

The death rate of diagnosed breast cancer survivors has dropped. The studies
I have read attribute this to better screening programs ( ie mammograms).
I had a tumor that no one could feel even with the mammogram and ultrasound
in hand.
No mammograms are not the greatest but is there an alternative?
Alex
Who is very grateful for mammography

sssynsmrt

Don't most doctors call for a biopsy before removing a breast? Since
lumpectomy is a pefectly acceptable alternative to mastectomy, I find it
interesting that a woman wouldn't opt for a lumpectomy if it was at all
possible. Also, a biopsy will tell what kind of breast cancer a person has.

Sassy

tim jackson

I think it would be unusual to go straight to a mastectomy on the basis of a
mammogram alone ,it is normal to get some sort of biopsy first.

There can be good reasons to chose a mastectomy over a lumpectomy, and there
are clinical situations where there is no choice.

Firstly mastectomy is in principle a simpler operation to recover from that
lumpectomy because it mostly involves cutting between tissues rather than
across them. Secondly, where the risk of further instances of bc is high,
elective bilateral mastectomy considerably reduces the risk. Thirdly where
reconstruction is not possible or desirable, prostheses for a whole breast
are rather easier to construct and wear than for a badly distorted one.
Fourthly for people living in inaccessible locations, multiple trips to
hospital for daily radiation therapy can be avoided by opting for
mastectomy.

Where the tumour is large or extensive or otherwise locally advanced, or
attempts to get clean margins in a lumpectomy have failed, then mastectomy
may be the only choice.


Tim Jackson

kaye301

possible. >>

I immediately wanted a bilateral mastectomy which turned out to be the best
possible choice for my case. All the surgeons I saw presented the alternatives
from least to most invasive as required by law.
One thing that influenced my decision was the story of a colleague who shared
her experience during the fearful time I was waiting to see a dr. She had been
dx'd 2 years before. She wound up having 2 lumpectomies without clear margins
before she had a mastectomy with reconstruction. What helped keep her focused
during that difficult time was that she would ask herself the question--'what's
more important, my life or my breast'?
Now, in my case besides having a bad family hx of b.c. I also had the type that
was most likely to show up on the other side--invasive lobular. My question to
my surgeon at time of dx--which was 9 mos. after a supposed normal mammogram
was--something like this--'okay, my most recent mammo now shows that there is a
malignancy--which I had felt within days after the last normal one (but was
'dissed' by my ob-gyn who reminded me that the mammo had been normal)--and that
malignancy supposedly has been growing for the last 5 to 10 years, so is it not
possible that the same thing might be happening in the other breast for which
that last mammo (which first showed the malignancy) was normal for the
non-malignant side. Her response was, "yes."
So, I had the mastectomy for what was thought to be a 2.5 cm invasive lobular
cancer. The breasts were both biopsied--the prophylactic one was found to be
normal, but the malignant one was also found to have high grade DCIS as well as
a separate tumor in the nipple with dermal lymphatics (rare presentation of
inflammatory b.c.) in addition to the main 2.5 cm pleopmorphic (aggressive
variant), invasive lobular tumor.
So, had they not removed the entire breast, the other two types of cancer that
were going on would not have been discovered until later probably. My case,
however, was not the norm. However, exceptions do happen...