3 Risks Your Doctor Won’t Tell You About Mammography

3 Risks Your Doctor Won’t Tell You About Mammography post image

As soon as friends and family heard about my family member’s breast cancer diagnosis at age 32, they all ran to their doctor to get a mammography. Not me. Even back 20 years ago I was concerned about several aspects of the procedure. Recently there have been studies that indicate that I wasn’t wrong or foolish to hesitate. With ALL medical procedures you have to weigh the risk versus the benefit. Sadly, most doctors do not tell patients the extent of the risks. Mammography has some major risks that are now being addressed in the scientific community.

Mammography is Ionizing Radiation

That mammography is ionizing radiation is the first, most obvious risk. In this study published in Radiation Research in 2002, the investigators concluded that the low dose of radiation used in mammography appears to be more harmful that the type of radiation associated with emissions from atomic bombs.

In this study published in the Journal of Radiological Protection in 2009, the investigators state,

Evidence highlighting the increase in relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of mammography x-rays to a range of x-ray energies implies that the risks of radiation-induced breast cancers for mammography x-rays are potentially underestimated by a factor of four.

Scientists have become more vocal in questioning the reported risks of low dose radiation in mammography. In this study published in the British Journal of Radiology in 2006, the scientists state,

Recent radiobiological studies have provided compelling evidence that the low energy X-rays as used in mammography are approximately four times–but possibly as much as six times–more effective in causing mutational damage than higher energy X-rays.

They conclude,

…that great caution is needed if a programme of early regular screening with X-rays is to be used for women with a family history of breast cancer…

Additionally, breast tissue (as well as glands and organs) are more sensitive to radiation than extremities. It’s one thing to x-ray an are or a leg when there is a valid reason such as a fracture — quite another to consistently x-ray an organ or other sensitive tissue as part of a screening tool.

Furthermore, compression of the breast is a very bad thing to do, especially if there is a tumor. This can break up the cancer cells and accelerate the spread of the cancer. Not to mention how painful it is.

Further Testing Necessary Due to Benign Findings on the Mammogram

Imaging the breast may reveal several findings that cause the need for further  evaluation. There may be micro-calcifications, dense breast tissue or a mass that cannot be identified, irregular tissue growth such as lumps, fibroadenomas, or breast cysts.

When these conditions are seen on mammography, they have to be further evaluated. That means more x-ray views, i.e., more radiation to the breast.

Additionally, 3D mammography may be used, which has been found to emit even more radiation. It stands to reason, since a typical screening mammogram is two views to each breast. If they see a problem, then a few more views to each breast. If they use 3D imaging — it’s more radiation again — thus the patient may be exposed to up to 3 times more radiation.

Finally, an invasive, painful, surgical biopsy may need to be performed to evaluate the actual cells for pathology.

All of this creates an extremely stressful situation for the patient and her family and in most cases it turns out to be for naught.

It’s Political

As with all medically approved accepted techniques and tools there comes before it a web of interrelationships between the politicians who approve the grant money, the research institutes who parcel out that money to their labs, the interest groups and other economically driven relationships between government and business that drive the approval of any new breakthrough in medicine.

Make no mistake about it, it much more than just trying to save lives.

Overdiagnosis of Breast Cancer

Recently, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a viewpoint article about the epidemic of over-diagnosis and over-treatment of cancer.

This study in the New England Journal of Medicne in 2012, entitled, Effect of Three Decades of Screening Mammography on Breast-Cancer Incidence, concluded that,

Despite substantial increases in the number of cases of early-stage breast cancer detected, screening mammography has only marginally reduced the rate at which women present with advanced cancer. Although it is not certain which women have been affected, the imbalance suggests that there is substantial overdiagnosis, accounting for nearly a third of all newly diagnosed breast cancers, and that screening is having, at best, only a small effect on the rate of death from breast cancer.

Furthermore, the investigators found that,

After excluding the transient excess incidence associated with hormone-replacement therapy and adjusting for trends in the incidence of breast cancer among women younger than 40 years of age, we estimated that breast cancer was overdiagnosed (i.e., tumors were detected on screening that would never have led to clinical symptoms) in 1.3 million U.S. women in the past 30 years. We estimated that in 2008, breast cancer was overdiagnosed in more than 70,000 women; this accounted for 31% of all breast cancers diagnosed. (My emphasis).

They go on to say,

Our study raises serious questions about the value of screening mammography. It clarifies that the benefit of mortality reduction is probably smaller, and the harm of overdiagnosis probably larger, than has been previously recognized. And although no one can say with certainty which women have cancers that are overdiagnosed, there is certainty about what happens to them: they undergo surgery, radiation therapy, hormonal therapy for 5 years or more, chemotherapy, or (usually) a combination of these treatments for abnormalities that otherwise would not have caused illness. (My emphasis)

Women should recognize that our study does not answer the question “Should I be screened for breast cancer?” However, they can rest assured that the question has more than one right answer.

Something to think about.

A Move to Change the Definition of Cancer

As published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, July 2013, a working group at the National Cancer Institute recently recommended changing the definition of cancer and eliminating the word from some common diagnoses as part of an overhaul to our approach to cancer detection and treatment.

Case in point is ductal carcinoma in situ which is the earliest form of breast cancer and is noninvasive. Many experts agree that that this is not cancer and should not have the term carcinoma as this is misleading and frightening to patients and may lead to extreme and potentially harmful treatments — such as chemo, radiation and even mastectomy.

The recommendation of this prominent group of scientists, which includes some of the top scientists in cancer research who have the backing of the National Cancer Institute, is a step into the future.

The concern is that many lesions detected during breast, prostate, thyroid, lung and other cancer screenings will never progress into anything malignant and should not be called cancer at all. They suggest a reclassification of these lesions as IDLE conditions, —  indolent lesions of epithelial origin.

Incidentaloma

With highly sensitive advanced technology we are finding more of these incidentalomas — or incidental findings detected during medical scans that most likely would never cause a problem. However, once a lesion is detected, it is necessary to go forward with more testing and treatment as this is standard protocol.

These slow growing lesions cause hundreds of thousands of men and women to undergo needless surgeries and treatments that will harm them years later.

What To Do

This leaves us with more questions than answers. As the researchers stated above, this does not answer the question “Should I be screened for breast cancer?” That is a personal choice that you have to make. These are some facts that you may want to consider before going for that yearly mammogram.

Disclaimer

Shared at: Thank Your Body Thursday, Tasty Traditions. Hearth & Soul Hop, Real Food Wednesday, Allergy Free Wednesday

 Photo Credit

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...


In order for me to support my blogging activities, I may receive monetary compensation or other types of remuneration for my endorsement, recommendation, testimonial and/or link to any products or services from this blog.

The owner of this website is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon properties including, but not limited to, amazon.com, endless.com, myhabit.com, smallparts.com, or amazonwireless.com. Disclaimer

Tropical Traditions Gold Label Virgin Coconut Oil

Tropical Traditions Gold Label Coconut Oil is a product I use every day.

Leave a Comment

  • Allie August 29, 2013, 9:12 am

    Such good information!

    I have had one mammogram and put under a biopsy some years ago. I never been back for a follow up mammography.
    I plan looking into getting a thermography at some point, maybe.

    Reply
  • Tina August 29, 2013, 9:44 am

    No mammograms for me anymore! I quit having them years ago. Thanks for the research and information. I’ll be passing this on to family members.

    Reply
  • Jill August 29, 2013, 11:29 am

    Hi Allie,
    Thermography is a double edged sword — it is not invasive, but since it is not standardized or accepted — if they see any slight problem they will recommend a mammography.

    Reply
  • VIVIAN August 29, 2013, 2:27 pm

    I’m torn. I’m 42 and have had numerous mammograms since my mid 20’s. For the past year and a half, I’ve had 3 mammograms dues to calcification. I was told to go back for one more just to be sure it hasn’t grown but I am very hesitant. What are other alternatives that are less harmful. How can I protect my self should I get it done again. Are there foods or supplements that help with fibrocystic breast?

    Reply
    • Jill September 3, 2014, 5:29 pm

      Vivian, I actually made some of this violet leaf balm today! Here is a link to the recipe: http://thenerdyfarmwife.com/violet-leaf-balm-good-for-eczema-fibrocystic-breasts/ I also make an herb tea, based in a couple different tea recipes by Rosemary Gladstar, to encourage lymphatic flow and promote good breast health. I use (dried, purchased from mountainroseherbs.com) red clover blossoms (2 parts), calendula flowers (2 parts), cleavers (1 part), violet leaf (1 part), and sometimes mullein and/or lady’s mantle (I think equal parts everything is fine too). It really seems to help! Plus, I reduced coffee to 1 cup per day and ditched underwire bras. Selenium is a mineral that is often recommended to help prevent breast cancer, and optimizing vitamin D levels is a huge risk reduction step too. I’d recommend following a low sugar, low-ish carb (certainly gluten-free), or even Paleo diet as well. Anything that reduces inflammation is good!

      Reply
    • Melissa September 3, 2014, 7:46 pm

      Hi, Thanks for the violet leaf balm recipe, Jill!

      I also wanted to mention to Vivian that iodine is extremely important for breast health. Selenium is necessary for proper utilization of iodine. For thyroid support I started taking kelp tablets (an iodine source) and brazil nuts for selenium: a bonus was that my fibrocystic symptoms were gone in a week.

      A great overview of the role of iodine in breast, ovary and prostate health, as well as thyroid, and more, is Dr. David Brownstein’s Iodine: Why You Need It, Why You Can’t Live Without It (4th Edition).

      Besides mammograms, the other imputed breast cancer risks doctors usually won’t talk about are smoking: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140210083237.htm

      the pill: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140801091210.htm

      and abortion. (There seems to be no increased incidence of breast cancer associated with miscarriage.) http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10552-013-0325-7
      http://www.lifenews.com/2013/12/02/bombshell-study-finds-44-increased-breast-cancer-risk-for-women-having-abortions/

      Thanks for the great article!

      Reply
  • Kendrik August 31, 2013, 9:56 am

    The most comprehensive analysis of mammography is “The Mammogram Myth: The Independent Investigation Of Mammography The Medical Profession Doesn’t Want You To Know About” by Rolf Hefti (see http://www.TheMammogramMyth.com ). You’ll have an entirely different view of screening, and modern medicine.

    Reply
  • Becca @ The Earthlings Handbook September 3, 2013, 1:19 pm

    I was reluctant to go for the screening mammogram when I turned 40 because I have NO family history of breast cancer or other risk factors. I did it because of large financial incentives for preventive care from my health insurance, and because I have a friend who had a serious breast cancer at 35. They found a “suspicious” spot and insisted on doing a biopsy. It was just a harmless fibroadenoma. The biopsy was VERY painful, and I still have a bruise 3 weeks later! Now, I’m glad I don’t have cancer, and I realize that if I did there would be even worse procedures ahead, but I hate that I went through all that for nothing.

    One thing I learned in the process is that it is better to get a mammogram in the first two weeks of your cycle if you are pre-menopausal. Simply publicizing this fact could save the health-care system money and save women unnecessary worry and radiation exposure.

    In between mammogram and biopsy, they looked at my breast with ultrasound. The image looked much clearer than the mammogram image, to me. Ultrasound is thought to be harmless and is a lot less painful. I wonder why they don’t use that as the screening test and then do a mammogram if there’s something suspicious?

    Reply
    • Jill September 3, 2013, 2:06 pm

      Hi Becca,
      Sorry you had to go through that. Thanks for bringing up the issue of when to go for a mammography in pre-menopausal women. That’s very important advice to follow as the hormones will change things in the breast in the second half of the cycle.

      Reply
  • novus plastic polish April 21, 2014, 3:58 pm

    Hello there! This is kind of off topic but I need
    some help from an established blog. Is it difficult
    to set up your own blog? I’m not very techincal but I can figure things out pretty quick.
    I’m thinking about making my own but I’m not sure where
    to start. Do you have any tips or suggestions?
    Thank you

    Reply
  • TanPaj September 5, 2014, 12:58 pm

    There are other serious harms of mammography commonly not adequately disclosed by the medical industry. If you scrutinize all the relevant anti-mammogram evidence the business of allophathy has been disregarding or dismissing because it’s interfering with their business interests, it is very obvious that mammography does more harm than good (see: Rolf Hefti’s “The Mammogram Myth”).
    A good example of this is that in surveys where women were told all of the facts about the test, many opted not to ever have mammograms again.

    Reply