MOTHER JONES BY E-MAIL

Should you get a mammogram?

News: For a premenopausal woman, it may actually increase risk.

May/June 1994 Issue


TOOLS

EmailE-mail article
PrintPrint article




BACKTALK

E-mail the editor





Google


Until recently, the medical establishment recommended regular "baseline" or "screening" mammograms for women in their 40s. But increasingly researchers suspect that unless you are over 50 or have found a suspicious lump in your breast, screening mammograms are unnecessary and could possibly increase your breast cancer risk slightly.

Here are four reasons for premenopausal women to think twice before getting a mammogram:

Mammograms don't work very well for premenopausal women.
Routine mammograms missed 40 percent of the breast cancers that developed among 25,000 women aged 40 to 49, according to a Canadian study released in 1992. In a similar Swedish study, 38 percent were missed. These high rates of false negatives occur because the dense, healthy breast tissue of younger women can resemble or obscure tumors. As a result, mammograms are notoriously inaccurate in women younger than 50, the average age of menopause.
Screening mammograms don't improve your chances of survival.
The aforementioned Canadian study followed 25,000 women who had routine screening mammograms and an equal number who did not. The findings: Women in both groups developed and died of breast cancer at the same rates. Seven other randomized studies have also reported no statistically significant reduction in the death rates of women who underwent routine screening mammography.
Mammograms sometimes find tumors that aren't there.
Radiologists are reluctant to rule out malignancy in the case of difficult-to-read areas. False positives occurred in 3 percent of the mammograms reviewed by the Swedish study. False positives usually lead to biopsies which, although relatively safe surgical procedures, are both emotionally and financially draining.
Mammograms expose women to radiation that may cause breast cancer.
Although modern mammography equipment uses far smaller dosages of radiation than did the machines built during the 1970s, no minimum dose of radiation has been proven safe with respect to breast cancer. "Every dose, no matter how low, confers some risk," says Dr. John Gofman, a nuclear scientist whose work dates back to the Manhattan Project. The risk is believed to be small--Gofman estimates that for a 40-year-old woman, a typical mammogram translates into no more than a 1-in-2,700 chance of developing breast cancer. But this risk is cumulative, increasing with each subsequent mammogram.
The National Cancer Institute, which launched the mammography crusade in the 1970s, recently rescinded its long-standing recommendation that women younger than 50 have routine mammograms. The National Women's Health Network and the Center for Medical Consumers actively advise premenopausal women to avoid mammography except to evaluate suspicious lumps. All three organizations continue to support routine mammography for women over 50.

 

Post a Comment

Your Name: 

Your Comment: 
 
Please press "Submit" only once to avoid double-posting.
All HTML formatting is removed from comments.
Read the Mother Jones community rules here.

Comments:


Jail.org - Inmate Search
Criminal records, instant public records & people search & current court records. www.jail.org

U.S. Public Records Search
Search County & State Court Records, Criminal records, Vital and Adoption Records www.PublicRecordsInfo.com

Records.com - People Search
Public Records and Background Checks. Instantly Search Criminal Records, Addresses and Court Records www.Records.com

Court Records & County Records
Find Instant Public Records, Criminal Records as Well as County Property Records Search. www.PublicRecordsIndex.com
















bookIN PRINT

CLICK HERE
for more great reading

headphones IN TUNE
New music every issue

CLICK TO LISTEN


This article has been made possible by the Foundation for National Progress, the Investigative Fund of Mother Jones, and gifts from generous readers like you.

© 1994 The Foundation for National Progress

About Us   Support Us   Advertise   Ad Policy   Privacy Policy   Contact Us   Subscribe   RSS