I think this "study" is pure cr*p.

That study is a bunch of garbage... My Mom (age 70) gets regular mammograms and last year it found a small bunch of "flecks" and had her rechecked in May of this year. The 2nd recheck showed a big mass "golf ball size" and she ended up with a mastectomy and the cancer was stage 2, and thank God it didn't spread to her lymph nodes.

If we were to follow this stupid rules of every 2 years, my Mom may not be around today...

So I will continue to go every year!!! Amazing how insurance will pay for Viagara, but not want to pay for yearly mammograms..

Derse-What kind of BC did you have? Some BC grows so slowly, that you can die of natural or other causes before the cancer kills you. The Dutch found this out in a recent study.

Looks like, though, the American Cancer Society is going to stick by their recommendations no matter how many European or International studies prove otherwise. The want to make sure the medical profession has many ways of getting into our pockets.

Deborah - the problem is that there is no current way of knowing if the tumor YOU might have is one of those "slow-growing" ones. So while this might be true that some tumors are slow-growing, women are still risking missing the cancers that are NOT slow-growing if they don't have regular mammograms. I'm not personally willing to take that chance. If you are, good for you.

This study is brought to you by the drug companies trying to steal profits/funds from the producers of x-ray equipment at women's expense.

This story is most likely an ad paid for the by the drug industry under the quise of a news article.

The makers of x-ray machines lied to women that these detection devices would extend their lives. Now that a few decades of data have been corrected, the x-ray makers lied.

No the drug companies that are financing this under the disguise of a news item are lying. Mammograms have saved lives of many women something some men do not realize.

This study was done in Norway. The population is different there. It is more uniform. Black women have more aggressive breast cancers for indefinite reasons and other subgroups in the U.S. very likely do too. This article is commented on by an editorial that argues that mammography was better before 1990 than it is today. That is just not true. Today's machines are better and cause less radiation exposure. A separate study from a publication by the American Society of Clinical Oncology reported on the incidence of breast cancer in the New England states. 25% of the women diagnosed with breast cancer were under the age of 50. This was a recent study. Breast cancer in women under 50 is, in general, a more aggressive and deadlier disease, therefore it will save fewer lives than in women over 70. There really are not many breast cancers that can just be observed.

As far as blaming the drug companies, they have nothing to do with mammography. The medical equipment companies represent a different group altogether. Their profits have been as high or higher than the drug companies' profits for the last year, although they both have been in the top 20.

Find the article. It argues AGAINST having mammograms under the age of 50. My opinion is that is a dangerous recommendation, but the editorial was written by one of the doctors on the FDA committee that recommended against routine mammograms under 50. One could argue that she is being rewarded by the FDA to make this recommendation. Maybe the FDA is behind this, or maybe the doctor writing the editorial is just defending her position. A lot of experts in breast cancer have been very critical of that FDA committee and I don't believe they are doing it for personal gain. In fact, chemotherapy is NOT given to the earliest stage breast cancers, like carcinoma-in-situ or even invasive cancers up to 1cm. in size in some cases. That means that if the doctors really wanted to treat more patients with breast cancer that it would be to their advantage to not do mammograms.

I do not do mammograms or own a mammogram machine so I do not have a special interest in making profits from them. It is always discouraging to see people post comments about not treating cancer, or placing blame on the wrong people. A study done in Norway may be dead-on when it comes to that uniform group of mostly Scandanavian extraction but it could be "deadly-on" if too much credence is given to it when carrying the idea to the U.S.

Check out the NCCN Breast Cancer Guidelines for their recommendations http://www.nccn.com

My thoughts exactly. Another example of TOTALLY IRRESPONSIBLE journalism.

These studies should not be reported verbatim to the general public. They mean nothing to anyone but the researchers conducting them.

Smlfry2 wrote "I will continue to get yearly mammograms regardless of what these scientists say."

Why did you listen to the scientists that told you to get the exams? Why do you trust old recommendations that did not have decades of results to new data based on decades of results?

I bet if a doctor told a woman that the mammogram would probably do little to extend her life but definitely increased her chance of cancer due to x-ray exposure, fewer women would stick their breasts in the machines.

Women, and those who love them, need to fight this new effort to scale back screening as a cost saving measure. Nationalized heath care at its finest is not going to save our lives.

This is EXACTLY what this is about. These test balloons in the media seem to be getting launched every few months now.

Only a third of the reduced risk of death credited to breast cancer screening is actually deserved — the rest is due to better treatment and greater awareness of the disease, a large study in Norway found.

And what a load of horse manure this is. Because nobody's getting "better treatment" until the cancer is detected - usually via mammogram. The fibrocystic breast tissue that BAnn refers to in her post is VERY common. I have it too, as do loads of my friends and family members. It is almost impossible to do self-exams when you have this kind of breast tissue. Regular mammograms - in conjunctions with ultrasounds - are the only effective and reasonable cost-effective methods we currently have to detect these cancers. I'm not stopping my yearly exams.

And how about the "greater awareness"? Yes, greater awareness means more women are getting regular mammograms, catching problems earlier and resulting in better outcomes for them.

BAnn-I'm not an expert in math, but sounds like you had at least 10 mammograms before the cancerous lump was found. Gee, that's a lot of radiation. Especially the earlier mammograms that delivered a higher dose. You never said what kind of breast cancer you were diagnosed with.

BAnn wrote "There is no breast cancer in my family. No cancer at all. Had I not gotten my mammo when I did I would not have survived."

Have you considered that the x-ray exposure from all of those 20+ mammograms caused your cancer?

VincentDenali and Deborah-373267 make the point that mammography may cause the development of breast cancer over and over in their posts but in someone who has severe fibrocystic disease it is very hard to distinquish a 1cm. cancer from a cyst. Fibrocystic breast disease does not increase a person's risk of developing breast cancer but, as fiscal... states, it makes it very hard for a person doing breast self examination or a doctor doing an examination to find an early breast cancer.

Whether or not the mammogram caused the cancer is a moot point once it is there. To not have the mammograms means running the risk of later detection and higher likelyhood of the cancer spreading.

In regards to the cancer in and of itself, if the breast cancer was caused by numerous mammograms then that would suggest that there was NO CANCER present before the patient began mammogram screening; therefore, the radiation exposure CAUSED the CANCER; consequently, if there had been NO mamograms or mammograms every two or more years there is a very good chance there would "never" have been any "cancer" to find. Also, mammograms MISS 30% of cancers or more depending on the hospital or clinic and the radiologists skill at reading mammogram images. Fibrocystic breasts only make matters worse; therefore, I find it hard to believe your doctor hasn't sent you for Breast MRI's which would be much more comfortable, safer and more accurate for you. If your doctor hasn't suggested it you should demanded Breast MRI's which would be much safer for someone with your situation rather than playing russian ruillet with your conditon and mamograms which are not entirely accurate to begin with. (you should really google mammogram & Breast MRI images and see the difference for yourself) Most health insurance providers will cover Breast MRI's with a doctor's referral if your doctor won't go along with MRI's find another one who will. I went through the hassle of fighting for Breast MRI's myself because as I stated a few posts down I want nothing to do with the radiation exposure from mammograms and when my aunt was hurt in a mammogram unit that just sealed things for me. The fight wasn't pretty with my former gynecologist having a temper tantrum or the search for a gynecologist who would see eye to eye with me, but the MRI's are worth the aggravation believe me.

How do you prove that the breast cancer was caused by the mammograms? It may have developed de novo. That is the problem with any cancer, with rare exceptions, such a mesothelioma. Do we know that MRI's will not cause cancer? No. They make protons release energy in the form of photons. Furthermore, I know patients who have had MRI's who later got cancer. Was that the fault of the MRI? Probably not, but prove it.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) uses a powerful "Magnetic Field","Radio Frequency Pulses", and a computer to create detailed images of organs, soft tissues, bone, etc.

A Photon is a particle of "Electromagnetic Energy (light)" which is a totally different form of radiation then that used for ct scans, x-rays, and mammograms.

CT scans, X-rays, & Mammograms use "IONIZING RADIATION" which is created with the splitting of an ATOM which is the same reaction used to detonate a "NUCLEAR WEAPON"such as the A-bomb's dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WWII. This type of radiation is very toxic to human life and the effects of this radiation are "CUMULATIVE"

Concerning the patients you know who got cancer and had MRI's;

Did these patients drink?

Did these patients smoke?

Did these patients have a diet high in fat?

Did these patients get enough exercise?

Did these patients have a family history of CANCER?

Did these patients work with toxic chemicals?

Do you know these patients well enough to answer these questions? Probably not. Did you realize that MRI's and Mammograms use (2) entirely different types of radiation before you posted. Probably not. I had heard of photons, but did not really know what they were so I did a little research before responding to you and now I know they are a particle of "Electromagnetic Energy (light)". I would ask you to consider that there are hundreds of reasons for why these particular patients got cancer which have no relation to MRI's. In regards to mammograms causing cancer the mere fact they use ionizing radiation makes it pretty obvious to someone who wants to see it that they do cause breast cancer.

However; long term studies concerning the effects of the "Long Term Exposure of Breast Tissue to Ionizing Radiation" have NEVER BEEN DONE; therefore, how can any medical professional promote this screening procedure without any studies on SAFTEY having been done?? I would rather have an MRI any day than play russian ruilett with a questionable screening procedure like mammograms.

All of what you have stated is correct and that is not my point. My point is that you cannot say with certainty whether or not the cancer would have developed anyway. It is also presumptuous of you to think that I do not know the difference between the photons produced by MRI and the ionizing radiation that occurs with mammograms. For that matter, there is an increase in the amount of ionizing radiation one receives from a passenger jet flight. I'm trying to make a point. DON'T BE SO DEFENSIVE AND INSULTING. There has never been a study with regular mammograms or with MRI.

Did you know that sunlight caused cancer? I'm glad I caused you to do some reading. I am also aware of all the other risk factors you listed. Be nice, d****t!

As a matter of fact, there have been studies on mammography and the amount of radiation. These have led to a reduction in the dose of radiation. MRI causes the protons in all the hydrogen atoms in a persons body to align in a specific way that causes them to release energy in the form of photons. We do not know how safe this is or how often MRI's can be safely done in breast tissue yet. MRI's should be safer, but a lot of things that are thought to be safe turn out not to be. MRI's have been done primarily on the brain in the past. The brain is one of the least sensitive organs to any type of radiation.

Also, the dose of radiation that can be safely given varies with time. A mammogram done yearly for 20 years does not pose the same risk as 20 mammograms done in one year. These are not black and white issues which should be obvious to anyone who wants to see it AND THEN THINK. Obama, just being passionate about a subject does not make you absolutely right about all aspects of that subject.

Again, you are presumptuous in the statements about what I know and don't know about breast cancer, the things that increase the risk of developing it, family history risks etc. I have been involved with diagnosing and treating breast cancer since 1972.

Are you as open minded and knowledgeable as you purport to be? PROBABLY NOT. At least I have heard of photons since I was about 12 years old and about the risks of radiation for almost that long.

To all who inferred my cancer was caused by my mammograms: I agree that there is some cause for concern when it comes to x-ray exposure and one should never expose themselves to x-rays unnecessarily. However, while there is no proof that mammos cause cancer there IS proof that mammos help catch cancer early. Catching any cancer as early as possible reduces the cost of treatment (financial, physical & emotional) and increases the long-term survival rate. If you choose to forego testing because of possible side-effects - That's fine. Your choice. But DON'T infer that I, and thousands of other women, caused our own cancer by getting mammos. Each of us are different and have different risk factors. We did what we thought was best based on our bodies, our doctor's advice and the advice of the American Cancer Society.

I certainly agree BAnn.

A couple of other thing:

MRI is more sensitive than mammography but it is less specific. It picks up more abnormalities but it is harder for the mammographer to determine whether they are more significant or not.

Today's mammogram machines produce about as much radiation as a person receives daily from all other sources combined.

Digital mammograms are even more sensitive than regular mammograms and these are becoming more readily available.

Check out Prevention magazine on myths about breast cancer.

Good point.

That sounds great- but how far away are we from this technology being routinely available to women at a reasonable rate?

Sounds good to me!

Also note that the article stated that women over 70 were not eligible for screening - I think that is horrific and it gives you a glimpse into the mindset of socialized medicine.

I know, scary isn't it? Sooo, women over 70 aren't eligible for screening and than they have this study that apparently says that there isn't much benefit to screening women over 50. So now they only want to screen women between 40 and 50?

Socialized medicine is not the answer.

Admittedly, that's a rare case. What will you say to the women that follow your advice and expose their breasts to x-ray radiation annually with 30+ mammograms that cause the cancer?

"So to all women, follow the advice of the American Cancer Society"

Why follow the old advice and not follow the new advice based on more information?

Vincent is wrong. That is not such a "RARE CASE". There are several studies out that show a significant number of women under 50. develop breast cancer. Women in this age group tend to have more aggressive breast cancer. A recent report from the New England area in the Journal of Oncology Practice showed that 25% of women were under age 50. MRI is still not available everywhere. Infrared mammography is still being studied. They both use non-ionizing radiation which we hope is safer. It stands to reason that it is. However, we do not know. There is now a report out that ultrasound, which uses just sound waves, may be hazardous in certain stages of development of female fetuses.

I doubt Vincent's and Obama's qualifications are as solid as their opinions seem to be on this matter.

Grandma Moses-6644013 wrote "They took the breast to pathology and after analyzing it they found 5 more tiny cancers that did not show on the mammogram. Had I not had early treatment I definitely would not have survived to see my 7 grandchildren grow up."

This is the entire controversy. After decades of data on how mammography detection affects mortality, the new responsible recommendations trump the older mammography recommendations based on nearly zero information.

"I am now 74 and would have my yearly mammogram even if it meant I had to go without food."

The average American woman lives until 80, and you write that you are 74. You would die without food within thirty days, but you'd prefer certain death over a small chance in a cancer? In the meantime, everyone else is paying for extending your life. Why don't you pay for these end-of-life procedures yourself?

Breast Cancer Awareness has become breast cancer hysteria.

Breast Cancer Awareness has become breast cancer hysteria.

So easy for a man to say...

Vincent, do you have a point to make here? You are implying several things with your comments. Please expound on your opinion concerning the statements you have made. Enlighten us on your opinion about who should pay for mammograms in Medicare aged patients and all patients for that matter.

Yes, the increase in cancer due to the mammography process is mentioned often enough.

I've also noticed that there is NO mention of how many women are seriously injured in mammography machine's every year. My 70 year old aunt had her left breast crammed into a mammography unit and compressed so hard she was banging on the machine and yelling for the tech; however, the bitch that was performing the mammogram made sure she got the image before coming to see why her patient was in so much distress. By the time the tech got there and released my aunt's left breast from the mammography unit, the bottom of the left breast had been torn open and it bled all over the bottom plate of the unit. My aunt couldn't wear a bra for weeks and was in a lot of pain while the under side of her breast healed up.

The radiation exposure issue and what happened to my aunt has turned me completely off mammograms; consequently, I became my own advocate and fought for and won Breast MRI's every other year. I had to tolerate a temper-tantrum by my FORMER gynecologist and the search for a new gynecologist who would be willing to refer me for the Breast MRI's which MOST health insurance companies WILL COVER "IF you have a doctor's referral." I found such a gynecologist who was willing to think for herself instead of letting the American Cancer Society do her thinking for her. I wish more women should start advocating for more accessiblility to and affordability in Breast MRI's which use NO compression and NO radiation then maybe the medical community would have "The Run For A New Screening Method". The longer women accept mammograms and refuse to fight for something else more women like my aunt will be hurt, maimed, and over exposed to radiation.

Dr. H. Gilbert Welch is a general internal medicine specialist "whose research focuses on the problems created by medicine's efforts to detect disease early: physicians test too often...". He has a book for sale on the subject for $16.95 so he is profiting from the debate just as others are when they take the other side. He makes some good points, but more of them pertain to screening and over-treatment of prostate cancer which is an entirely different cancer. 50% of men who have it die with it, not of it. His opinion is one side of the argument. A lot of experts disagree with him on breast cancer, fewer on prostate cancer.

stanmark, I am not familiar with the 1 in 25,000 figure. If you have a reference I would be interested. The article states that mammography prevented 2.4 deaths per 100,000 and that figure is low compared to some other studies and opinions.