Topic: Do I ever want another mammogram?

Posted on: Nov 2, 2009 04:40 pm

Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 19

coffeelatte wrote:

I have just gone through a long breast cancer scare the last couple of months but I was extremely lucky in that the lumpectomy revealed my mass was not a cancer. However, I was terrified for more than three months and I am wondering if the fear was worth it and also if the radiation from mammograms is safe or is it another source of problems? I ask this because my suspicious mass was back against the breast wall so the radiologist had a very hard time finding the right area to target the wire for the excisional biopsy. In all, it took her over one hour and I had 12 mammogram pictures before she found the right spot for the wire.

I am just so upset because I feel if I didn't have the cancer this time, I sure will the next from all the radiation they are exposing me to. Is this unrealistic of me? I feel I try so hard to take care of myself but I end up with problems from the medical care part. I also have a huge, sore incision and scar which is a constant reminder of this miserable ordeal.

Do you ladies think it is best to continue with these mammograms? I just am so confused.

Posts 1 - 4 (4 total)
Sue-61 MA Joined: May 2009 Posts: 378	Log in to post a reply Nov 2, 2009 04:49 pm Sue-61 wrote: I beleive there is very little radiation exposure from a mammo. Are you getting a digital one or the old fashioned pancake makers? I hated those ..........How about the doc doing an ultrasound? Sue-61
leaf Joined: Dec 2005 Posts: 6,303	Log in to post a reply Nov 2, 2009 05:45 pm, edited Nov 2, 2009 05:49 PM by leaf leaf wrote: On one hand, they have found no safe exposure to radiation. That means they have not found a lower dose of radiation where there is no effects. On the other hand, we are continuously exposed to radiation. This site describes amounts of background radiation. Note that naturally occurring radon is about 200 millirems/yr, smoking is about 280 millirems/yr, whereas is dental Xrays with about 10 millirems/Xray, and a chest Xray is about 8 millirems/Xray. http://web.princeton.edu/sites/ehs/osradtraining/backgroundradiation/background.htm “The effective radiation dose from a mammogram is about 0.7 mSv, which is about the same as the average person receives from background radiation in three months. Federal mammography guidelines require that each unit be checked by a medical physicist every year to ensure that the unit operates correctly. See the Safety page for more information about radiation dose.”http://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/info.cfm?pg=mammo Being exposed to large amounts of radiation early in life—such as atomic bomb explosions in Japan and therapeutic radiation for certain cancers— has been linked to an increased risk of breast cancer. The risk for developing breast cancer later in life is related to the amount of radiation received and the age of the exposure. If someone received radiation treatment before the age of 20, his/her risk is very high. The same exposure after the age of 40 would give only a small increased risk. X-rays and mammograms expose you to very small doses of radiation and have little, if any, impact on breast cancer risk. Any potential risks of screening tests like mammography are thought to be strongly outweighed by their benefits. A mammogram is done with a special type of X-ray machine used for breasts. This machine produces low energy X-rays that do not penetrate tissue as easily as in a routine chest X-ray. This method lowers the dose of ionizing radiation to the breast while still producing a high-quality contrast image for doctors to evaluate. http://ww5.komen.org/KomenNewsArticle.aspx?id=7710 The modern mammography machine uses low radiation doses to produce breast x-rays that are high in image quality (usually about 0.1 to 0.2 rads per picture). Older mammography units delivered higher doses, and led to concerns about radiation risks. These older machines are no longer used. Strict guidelines ensure that mammography equipment is safe and uses the lowest dose of radiation possible. Many people are concerned about the exposure to x-rays, but the level of radiation from mammography today does not significantly increase the breast cancer risk for a woman who gets regular mammograms. To put dose into perspective, if a woman with breast cancer is treated with radiation, she will likely get a total of around 5,000 rads (a rad is a measure of radiation dose). If she has yearly mammograms beginning at age 40 and continues until she is 90, she will get a total of 20 to 40 rads. To put it another way, the dose of radiation that she gets during a screening mammogram is about the same amount of radiation from her natural surroundings (background radiation) she would average over about 3 months. http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_6X_Mammography_and_Other_Breast_Imaging_Procedures_5.asp
baywatcher Key West, FL Joined: Nov 2008 Posts: 438	Log in to post a reply Nov 3, 2009 08:03 pm baywatcher wrote: I no longer have breasts but knowing what I know now and if I could do a redo, I would never do mammograms again as a routine procedure. If I found a lump, I wouldn't be stupid and I would have it checked.
sandyincali… Joined: Feb 2010 Posts: 5	Log in to post a reply Feb 20, 2010 01:20 am sandyincalifornia wrote: Coffeelatte, YES, you do want more mammograms. My DCIS was discovered by mammogram, never felt a thing. I am going through alot of anxiety right now as I am scheduled for my 4th mam mo since my surgery 17 mos. ago. Talked to my oncologist about MRI vs Mammo, concerned about the radiation. She told me the radiation really is minimal and that MRI's often show things that are not cancer but the women end up going through subsequent biopsies because the films can't specify what is there. A whole lot of stress for nothing. So I say YES, keep those mammos coming. Hang in there, I know it's scary. It will always be. But like I have just discovered, there are alot of us to count on for support.

↑Back to Top