|
|
  
|
Free Report on MammogramsBreast cancer
is the leading cause of death among women between the ages of 44 and 55. Dr.
Gofinan, in his book, Preventing Breast Cancer, cites this startling statistic along
with an in-depth look at mammographic screening, an early-detection practice
that agencies in the Cancer Industry recommend to women of all age groups.
According to most health experts, catching a tumour in its early stages
increases a woman's chances of survival by at least 17 percent. So we will
explore this and then you be your own judge. The most common
method for early detection is mammography. A mammogram is an X-ray picture of
your breast that can reveal tumour growths otherwise undetectable in a physical
exam. Like all x-rays, mammograms use doses of ionizing radiation to
create this image. Radiologists then analyse the image for any abnormal growths.
Despite continuous improvements and innovations, mammography has garnered a sizable opposition in
the medical community because of an error rate that is still high and the amount
of harmful radiation used in the procedure.  $2.95 will buy me a
coffee. Thank you very much
Effectiveness of Mammography The first question is... Is mammography
an effective tool for detecting tumours? Some critics say no. In a Swedish study
of 60,000 women, 70 percent of the mammographically detected tumours weren't
tumours at all. These "false positives" aren't just financial and
emotional strains, they may also lead to many unnecessary and invasive biopsies.
In fact, 70 to 80 percent of all positive mammograms do not, upon biopsy,
show any presence of cancer. At the same
time, mammograms also have a high rate of missed tumours, or "false
negatives." Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, in his book, The Politics Of
Cancer, claims that in
women ages 40 to 49, one in four instances of cancer is missed at each
mammography. The National Cancer Institute
(NCI) puts the false negative rate even higher at 40 percent among women ages
40-49. National Institutes of Health spokespeople also admit that mammograms
miss 10 percent of malignant tumours in women over 50. Researchers have found
that breast tissue is denser among younger women, making it difficult to detect
tumours. For this reason, false negatives are twice as likely to occur in
premenopausal mammograms. Radiation RisksMany critics of
mammography cite the hazardous health effects of radiation. In 1976, the
controversy over radiation and mammography reached a saturation point. At that
time mammographic technology delivered five to 10 rads (radiation-absorbed
doses) per screening, as compared to 1 rad in current screening methods. In
women between the ages of 35 and 50, each rad of exposure increased the risk of breast cancer by one percent, according to Dr.
Frank Rauscher, then-director of the NCI. According to
Russell L. Blaylock, MD, one estimate is that annual radiological breast exams
increase the risk of breast cancer by two percent a year. So over 10 years the
risk will have increased 20 percent. In the 1960s and 70s, women, even those who
received 10 screenings a year, were never told the risk they faced from
exposure. In the midst of the 1976 radiation debate, Kodak, a major manufacturer of mammography film, took
out full-page ads in scientific journals entitled About breast
cancer and X-rays: A hopeful message from industry on a sober topic. Despite better
technology and decreased doses of radiation, scientists still claim mammography
is a substantial risk. Dr. John W. Gofman, an authority on the health effects of
ionizing radiation, estimates that 75 percent of breast cancer could be
prevented by avoiding or minimizing exposure to the ionizing radiation. This
includes mammography, x-rays and other medical and dental sources. Since
mammographic screening was introduced, the incidence of a form of breast cancer
called ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) has increased by 328 percent. Two hundred
percent of this increase is allegedly due to mammography. In addition to harmful
radiation, mammography may also help spread existing cancer cells due to the considerable pressure
placed on the woman's breast during the procedure. According to some health
practitioners, this compression could cause existing cancer cells to metastasize
from the breast tissue. Cancer research
has also found a gene, called oncogene AC, which is extremely sensitive to even
small doses of radiation. A significant percentage of women in the United States have this gene, which could increase
their risk of mammography-induced cancer. They estimate that 10,000 A-T carriers
will die of breast cancer this year due to mammography. The risk of
radiation is apparently higher among younger women. The NCI released evidence
that, among women under 35, mammography could cause 75 cases of breast cancer
for every 15 it identifies. Another
Canadian study found a 52 percent increase in breast cancer mortality in young
women given annual mammograms. Dr. Samuel Epstein also claims that pregnant
women exposed to radiation could endanger their foetus. He advises against
mammography during pregnancy because "the future risks of leukemia to your
unborn child, not to mention birth defects, are just
not worth it." Similarly, studies reveal that children exposed to radiation
are more likely to develop breast cancer as adults. Navigating the StatisticsWhile the
number of deaths
caused by breast cancer has decreased, the incidence of breast cancer is still rising. Since
1940, the incidence of breast cancer has risen by one to two percent every year.
Between 1973 and 1991, the incidence of breast cancer in females over 65 rose
nearly 40 percent in the United States. Some
researchers attribute this increase to better detection technologies; i.e., as
the number of women screened for breast cancer rises, so does the number of
reported cases. Other analysts say the correlation between mammographic
screening and increases in breast cancer is much more ominous, suggesting
radiation exposure is responsible for the growing number of cases. While the
matter is still being debated, Professor Sandra Steingraber offers ways to
navigate these statistics. According to Steingraber, the rise in breast cancer
predates the introduction of mammograms as a common diagnostic tool. In
addition, the groups of women in whom breast cancer incidence is ascending most
swiftly – blacks and the elderly – are also least likely to get regular
mammograms. The majority of
health experts agree that the risk of breast cancer for women under 35 is not
high enough to warrant the risk of radiation exposure. Similarly, the risk of
breast cancer to women over 55 justifies the risk of mammograms. The statistics
about mammography and women between the ages of 40 and 55 are the most
contentious. A 1992 Canadian National Breast Cancer Study showed that
mammography had no positive effect on mortality for women between the ages of 40
and 50. In fact, the study seemed to suggest that women in that age group are
more likely to die of breast cancer when screened regularly. Burton
Goldberg, in his book, Alternative Medicine, recommends that women under 50 avoid screening mammograms,
although the American Cancer Society
encourages mammograms every two years for women ages 40 to 49. Trying to settle
this debate, a 1997 consensus panel appointed by the NIH ruled that there was no evidence that mammograms for
this age group save lives; they may even do more harm than good. The panel
advises women to weigh the risks with their doctors and decide for themselves. New Screening Technologies While screening
is an important step in fighting breast cancer, many researchers are looking for
alternatives to mammography. Burton Goldberg totes the safety and accuracy of
new thermography technologies. Able to detect cancers at a minute physical stage of development,
thermography does not use x-rays, nor is there any compression of the breast.
Also important, new thermography technologies do not lose effectiveness with
dense breast tissue, decreasing the chances of false-negative results. Some doctors
are now offering digital mammograms. Digital mammography is a mammography system
in which x-ray film is replaced by solid-state detectors that convert x-rays
into electric signals. Though radiation is still used, digital mammography
requires a much smaller dose. The electrical signals are used to produce images
that can be electronically manipulated; a physician can zoom in, magnify and
optimize different parts of breast tissue without having to take an additional
image. $2.95 will buy me a
coffee. Thank you very much
THE EXPERTS
SPEAK ON MAMMOGRAMS AND BREAST CANCER:
Regular
mammography of younger women increases their cancer risks. Analysis of
controlled trials over the last decade has shown consistent increases in breast
cancer mortality within a few years of commencing screening. This confirms
evidence of the high sensitivity of the premenopausal breast, and on cumulative
carcinogenic effects of radiation. In his book,
"Preventing Breast Cancer," Dr. Gofinan says that breast cancer is the
leading cause of death among American women between the ages of forty-four and
fifty-five. Because breast tissue is highly radiation-sensitive, mammograms can
cause cancer. The danger can be heightened by a woman's genetic makeup,
pre-existing benign breast disease, artificial menopause, obesity, and hormonal
imbalance. "The risk
of radiation-induced breast cancer has long been a concern to mammographers and
has driven the efforts to minimize radiation dose per examination," the
panel explained. "Radiation can cause breast cancer in women, and the risk
is proportional to dose. The younger the woman at the time of exposure, the
greater her lifetime risk for breast cancer. Furthermore,
there is clear evidence that the breast, particularly in premenopausal women, is
highly sensitive to radiation, with estimates of increased risk of breast cancer
of up to 1% for every rad (radiation absorbed dose) unit of X-ray exposure. This
projects up to a 20% increased cancer risk for a woman who, in the 1970s,
received 10 annual mammograms of an average two rads each. In spite of this, up
to 40% of women over 40 have had mammograms since the mid-1960s, some annually
and some with exposures of 5 to 10 rads in a single screening from older,
high-dose equipment. No less
questionable—or controversial—has been the use of X rays to detect breast
cancer: mammography. The American Cancer Society initially promoted the
procedure as a safe and simple way to detect breast tumours early and thus allow
women to undergo mastectomies before their cancers had metastasized. $2.95 will buy me a
coffee. Thank you very much
The American Cancer Society, together with
the American College of Radiologists, has insisted on pursuing large scale
mammography screening programs for breast cancer, including its use in younger
women, even though the NCI and other experts are now agreed that these are
likely to cause more cancers than could possibly be detected. The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 291 A number of
"cancer societies" argued, saying the tests — which cost between
$50-200 each - - are a necessity for all women over 40, despite the fact that
radiation from yearly mammograms during ages 40-49 has been estimated to cause
one additional breast cancer death per 10,000 women. Mammograms
Add to Cancer Risk—mammography
exposes the breast to damaging ionizing radiation. John W. Gofman, M.D., Ph.D.,
an authority on the health effects of ionizing radiation, spent 30 years
studying the effects of low-dose radiation on humans. He estimates that 75% of
breast cancer could be prevented by avoiding or minimizing exposure to the
ionizing radiation from mammography, X rays, and other medical sources. Other
research has shown that, since mammographic screening was introduced in 1983,
the incidence of a form of breast cancer called ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS),
which represents 12% of all breast cancer cases, has increased by 328%, and 200%
of this increase is due to the use of mammography.69 In addition to exposing a
woman to harmful radiation, the mammography procedure may help spread an
existing mass of cancer cells. During a mammogram, considerable pressure must be
placed on the woman's breast, as the breast is squeezed between two flat plastic
surfaces. According to some health practitioners, this compression could cause
existing cancer cells to metastasize from the breast tissue. Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 588 In fact the
benefits of annual screening to women age 40 to 50, who are now being
aggressively recruited, are at best controversial. In this age group, one in
four cancers is missed at each mammography. Over a decade of pre-menopausal
screening, as many as three in 10 women will be mistakenly diagnosed with breast
cancer. Moreover, international studies have shown that routine premenopausal
mammography is associated with increased breast cancer death rates at older
ages. Factors involved include: the high sensitivity of the premenopausal breast
to the cumulative carcinogenic effects of mammographic X-radiation; the still
higher sensitivity to radiation of women who carry the A-T gene; and the danger
that forceful and often painful compression of the breast during mammography may
rupture small blood vessels and encourage distant spread of undetected cancers. Since a mammogram is basically an x-ray (radiation) of the breast, I do not recommend mammograms to my patients for two reasons: 1) Few radiologists are able to read mammograms correctly, therefore limiting their effectiveness. Even the man who developed this technique stated on national television that only about six radiologists in the United States could read them correctly. 2) In addition, each time the breasts are
exposed to an x-ray, the risk of breast cancer increases by 2 percent. $2.95 will buy me a
coffee. Thank you very much
Mammography
itself is radiation: an X-ray picture of the breast to detect a potential
tumour. Each woman must weigh for herself the risks and benefits of mammography.
As with most carcinogens, there is a latency period or delay between the time of
irradiation and the occurrence of breast cancer. This delay can vary up to
decades for different people. Response to radiation is especially dramatic in
children. Women who received X-rays of the breast area as children have shown
increased rates of breast cancer as adults. The first increase is reflected in
women younger than thirty-five, who have early onset breast cancer. But for this
exposed group, flourishing breast cancer rates continue for another forty years
or longer. The use of
women as guinea pigs is familiar. There is revealing consistency between the
tamoxifen trial and the 1970s trial by the NCI and American Cancer Society
involving high-dose mammography of some 300,000 women. Not only is there little
evidence of effectiveness of mammography in pre-menopausal women, despite NCI's
assurances no warnings were given of the known high risks of breast cancer from
the excessive X-ray doses then used. There has been no investigation of the
incidence of breast cancer in these high-risk women. Of related concern is the
NCI's continuing insistence on pre-men-pausal mammography, in spite of contrary
warnings by the American College of Physicians and the Canadian Breast Cancer
Task Force and in spite of persisting questions about hazards even at current
low-dose exposures. These problems are compounded by the NCI's failure to
explore safe alternatives, especially transillumination with infrared light
scanning. High Rate of
False Positives—mammography's high rate of false-positive test results wastes
money and creates unnecessary emotional trauma. A Swedish study of 60,000 women,
aged 40-64, who were screened for breast cancer revealed that of the 726
actually referred to oncologists for treatment, 70% were found to be cancer
free. According to The Lancet, of the 5% of
mammograms that suggest further testing, up to 93% are false positives. The
Lancet report further noted that because the great majority of positive
screenings are false positives, these inaccurate results lead to many
unnecessary biopsies and other invasive surgical procedures. In fact, 70% to 80%
of all positive mammograms do not, on biopsy, show any presence of cancer.
According to some estimates, 90% of these "call-backs" result from
unclear readings due to dense overlying breast tissue.72 Radiation-related
breast cancers occur at least 10 years after exposure," continued the
panel. "Radiation from yearly mammograms during ages 40-49 has been
estimated to cause one additional breast cancer death per 10,000 women." According to
the National Cancer Institute, there is a high rate of missed tumours in women
ages 40-49 which results in 40% false negative test results. Breast tissue in
younger women is denser, which makes it more difficult to detect tumours, so
tumours grow more quickly in younger women, and tumours may develop between
screenings. Because there is no reduction in mortality from breast cancer as a
direct result of early mammogram, it is recommended that women under fifty avoid
screening mammograms although the American Cancer Society still recommends a
mammogram every two years for women age 40-49. Dr. Love states, "We know
that mammography works and will be a lifesaving tool for at least 30%." Equivocal
mammogram results lead to unnecessary surgery, and the accuracy rate of
mammograms is poor. According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), in women
ages 40-49, there is a high rate of "missed tumours," resulting in 40%
false-negative mammogram results. Breast tissue in younger women is denser,
which makes it more difficult to detect tumours, and tumours grow more quickly
in younger women, so cancer may develop between screenings. Even worse,
spokespeople for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) admit that mammograms
miss 25 percent of malignant tumours in women in their 40s (and 10 percent in
older women). In fact, one Australian study found that more than half of the
breast cancers in younger women are not detectable by mammograms. $2.95 will buy me a
coffee. Thank you very much
Whatever you
may be told, refuse routine mammograms to detect early breast cancer, especially
if you are premenopausal. The X-rays may actually increase your chances of
getting cancer. If you are older, and there are strong reasons to suspect that
you may have breast cancer, the risks may be worthwhile. Very few circumstances,
if any, should persuade you to have X-rays taken if you are pregnant. The future
risks of leukaemia to your unborn child, not to
mention birth defects, are just not worth it. Other medical
research has shown that the incidence of a form of breast cancer known as ductal
carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which accounts for 12% of all breast cancer cases,
increased by 328% — and 200% of this increase is due to the use of
mammography! As the
controversy heated up in 1976, it was revealed that the hundreds of thousands of
women enrolled in the program were never told the risk they faced from the
procedure (ibid.). Young women faced the greatest danger. In the thirty-five- to
fifty-year-old age group, each mammogram increased the subject's chance of
contracting breast cancer by 1 percent, according to Dr. Frank Rauscher, then
director of the National Cancer Institute (New York Times, August 23, 1976). $2.95 will buy me a
coffee. Thank you very much
Because there
is no reduction in mortality from breast cancer as a direct result of early
mammograms, it is recommended that women under 50 avoid screening mammograms,
However, breast self-exams and safer, more accurate technologies such as
thermography should be strongly considered as options to mammography. In the midst of
the debate, Kodak took out full-page ads in scientific journals entitled
"About breast cancer and X-rays: A hopeful message from industry on a sober
topic" (see Science, July 2, 1976). Kodak is a major manufacturer of
mammography film. In 1993—seventeen
years after the first pilot study—the biochemist Mary Wolff and her colleagues
conducted the first carefully designed, major study on this issue. They analysed
DDE and PCB levels in the stored blood specimens of 14,290 New York City women
who had attended a mammography screening clinic. Within six months, fifty-eight
of these women were diagnosed with breast cancer. Wolff matched each of these
fifty-eight women to control subjects—women without cancer but of the same
age, same menstrual status, and so on—who had also visited the clinic. The
blood samples of the women with breast cancer were then compared to their
cancer-free counterparts. One reason may
be that mammograms actually increase mortality. In fact numerous studies to date
have shown that among the under-50s, more women die from breast cancer among
screened groups than among those not given mammograms. The results of the
Canadian National Breast Cancer Screening Trial published in 1993, after a
screen of 50,000 women between 40-49, showed that more tumours were detected in
the screened group, but not only were no lives saved but 36 percent more women
died from breast cancer The Cancer Handbook by Lynne McTaggart, page 57 One Canadian
study found a 52 percent increase in breast cancer mortality in young women
given annual mammograms, a procedure whose stated purpose is to prevent cancer.
Despite evidence of the link between cancer and radiation exposure to women from
mammography, the American Cancer Society has promoted the practice without
reservation. Five radiologists have served as ACS presidents.53 Premenopausal
women carrying the A-T gene, about 1.5 percent of women, are more radiation
sensitive and at higher cancer risk from mammography. It has been estimated that
up to 10,000 breast cancer cases each year are due to mammography of A-T
carriers. A study
reported that mammography combined with physical exams found 3,500 cancers, 42
percent of which could not be detected by physical exam. However, 31 percent of
the tumours were non-infiltrating cancer. Since the course of breast cancer is
long, the time difference in cancer detected through mammography may not be a
benefit in terms of survival. The American
College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists also has called for more mammograms
among women over 50. However, constant screening still can miss breast cancer.
Mammograms are at their poorest in detecting breast cancer when the woman is
under 50. Despite its
shortcomings, every woman between the ages of fifty and sixty-nine should have
one every year. I also recommend them annually for women over seventy, even
though early detection isn't as important for the slow-growing form of breast
cancer they tend to get. One mammogram should probably be taken at age forty to
establish a baseline, but how often women should have them after that is
debatable. Some authorities favour annual screening. Others feel there's not
enough evidence to support screening at all before fifty. Still others believe
that every two years is sufficient. I lean toward having individual women and
their doctors go over the pros and cons and make their own decisions. Finally, a
mammogram is appropriate at any age if a lump has been detected. For breast cancer, thermography offers a
very early warning system, often able to pinpoint a cancer process five years
before it would be detectable by mammography. Most breast tumours have been
growing slowly for up to 20 years before they are found by typical diagnostic
techniques. Thermography can detect cancers when they are at a minute physical
stage of development, when it is still relatively easy to halt and reverse the
progression of the cancer. No rays of any kind enter the patient's body; there
is no pain or compressing of the breasts as in a mammogram. While mammography
tends to lose effectiveness with dense breast tissue, thermography is not
dependent upon tissue densities. So now hopefully, you are better armed and much more informed. Make your own life choices and do it with much more confidence. |
Contact InformationGeneral Information Sales Customer Support Webmaster
|
