Showing posts with label mammogram. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mammogram. Show all posts

More confusion but you'd think there wouldn't be

Posted by admin on 7/22/10


[by the immortal Posada]


I've been getting mammograms every six months for the remaining breast. Today I went again, and the procedure is that after the mammogram, you're led to the radiology lair and sit in the radiologist's office and talk to her. The radiologist I saw today was seemed to be in her 30s and spoke without pretense. She was happy because the images showed that the (micro)calcifications, which are tiny specks of calcium that could indicate cancer but probably don't, have looked the same in all the mammograms in the past few years. So that means that nothing has changed. OK, it means that probably nothing has changed because you can't see every little thing that's going on.

I've had calcifications for a while--for years, in fact, before I was diagnosed. So I asked her if she could look at the calcifications in my cancer mammograms and compare them to the pre-cancer mammograms. My idea was that she could say, Aha, these calcifications from 2005 developed into the cancer of 2006/7, you can see that in retrospect. And then that would shed light on the specks of July 2010.

So she went through the images and arranged them on her light board and looked through her magic binoculars to see them better and said you couldn't learn anything from the comparison.It seems that the calcifications appeared next to the tumors (or masses, as they say in the biz) but did not turn into them. She also said she had other customers waiting and indicated the folders on her desk. OK, she said patients, not customers.

She told me if I was really worried that I could have a biopsy but it wasn't necessary or that I could come in for a mammogram in six months instead of a year.

I had asked her to do this extra digging because I had this idea of calcium specks as little seeds that could turn into cancer, but that seems to be wrong. Dr. Susan Love tells us: Microcalcifications, as we call these specks, are usually the result of normal wear and tear on your breasts, but 20 percent of the time they're an indication of cancer or of the precancer ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). If the film shows only a few very tiny specks arranged in tight clusters, then it's more likely to be something wrong that can fit into the tiny ducts. If the specks are scattered and larger in size, they're more likely to be benign and harmless.

The California Pacific Medical Center tells us: "Benign" calcifications in the breast do not become malignant. Malignant calcifications are malignant from the time they first appear. When the radiologist assigns calcifications to a "probably benign" category, the risk of malignancy is considered to be less than 2%.

My specks are scattered and the radiologist didn't seem bothered by them. She gave me a piece of paper showing the mammogram results as "benign appearing (not malignant) stable." The surgeon smiled at the results when she popped in (standing the whole time). In all everyone seemed happy and cheery with the mammograms, just stopping short of congratulating me on the films' unchanged nature, the way they did when we found out that the cancer hadn't crept up into my lymph nodes.

Aw shucks, it was nothing.

Still, nobody knows anything for sure sure, and though the physician's assistant said it was great that the cancer hadn't come back after 3.5 years, when I asked him about estrogen-sensitive tumors like I had, he said that they're usually slow-growing and are more likely to come back after 15 or 20 years than right away. I was thinking of CJ, who died last summer after having had a mastectomy and no chemo. She said that she thought she should have had chemo. She did have some good years, I think about eight, and then a couple of bad ones at the end, with the cancer growing in her brain and bones. She was working as long as she could, as a school librarian, even when she was nearly blind.

It's fine to laugh at this stage 2-a breast cancer, just garden variety, no big deal, I didn't need that breast anyway, and to read about someone with stage four whose bones were cracking at the end of her book (The Red Devil) and then to find out, hey, she just wrote a book about spending a year in India, but the cancer--even though we say its name now, not just Big C, or that someone's Sick, or Very Sick--it is a death sentence, for some people, some of the time, we just don't have all the particulars in advance.
More aboutMore confusion but you'd think there wouldn't be

Gammagrams - A New Test for Breast Cancer

Posted by admin on 2/10/09

.
Breast-Specific Gamma Imaging aka the "Gammagram " uses a radioactive injection and then a picture is taken. Tumor cells brighten up quite vividly on the picture because they have a fast metabolism. This test is used when cancer is suspected, not as a screening tool like the annual mammogram. Whether it becomes commonly used will depend upon future studies that show it saves lives and money.

The benefits of a Gammagram is that doctors can easily read them and can make an immediate diagnosis. It also lets women avoid biopsies. When x-rays are too cloudy, the doctor usually says, "Come back in 6 months for a follow up test." No one wants to delay action for six months if it is cancer, so the Gammagram is a great follow up tool.

Ladies will like the fact that a Gammagram doesn't do any squishing (and you know what I mean!). The test takes less than an hour. Patients sit in a chair with their breast put between a plastic shield and a camera device.

Gammagrams are preferred over mammograms for women with dense breasts, breast implants, previous breast surgeries or lobular breast cancer. They can be used as a follow up if a lump is found or if there is an unusual mammogram result. Right now studies are ongoing to compare Gammagrams to MRI's and positron-emission tomography (PET) scans.

It's an expensive machine for the provider to purchase but all doctors really prefer its fast and easy to read results. Most insurance plans pay for the test.
.
More aboutGammagrams - A New Test for Breast Cancer

Breast Cancer Myths

Posted by admin on 1/27/09

1. "I’m too young to worry about breast cancer."
Fact: While it’s true that your breast cancer risk increases as you get older, the fact is that women of all ages are at risk for developing breast cancer. See: 5 Reasons Why Young Women Should Perform Monthly Breast Self Exam.
Note- I was in my 40's when diagnosed. The doctor told me there is a new, fast-growing incidence of ladies in their 40's getting breast cancer.

2. "There’s never been a case of breast cancer in my family so I don’t need to worry about it happening to me."
Fact: The truth is the majority of women diagnosed with breast cancer don’t have a family history of this devastating cancer. However, if your mother, sister, or grandmother ever had breast cancer your risk is significantly increased.See: Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool.
Note- I am the one and only person with breast cancer in my family tree.

3. "I don’t have a mutated BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene so I’m sure breast cancer is not in my future." Fact: Don’t fool yourself! Not having a mutated BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene does not mean you won’t get breast cancer. Actually, the truth is that almost all women (90 to 95 percent) diagnosed with breast cancer have neither a family history nor mutated BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene, according to the American Cancer Society. See: Understanding the BRCA Gene and Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer
Note- I had the BRCA tests and they were negative.

4. "The majority of women diagnosed with breast cancer had more than one risk factor prior to diagnosis."
Fact: All women are at risk for developing breast cancer whether they have known risk factors. In fact, the majority of breast cancer patients had no known risk factors, other than being female, for this frightening disease. See: Understanding Breast Cancer Risk
Note- I had no risk factors.

5. "Breast cancer is preventable."
Fact: Although a drug classified as an antiestrogen called, Tamoxifen may decrease breast cancer risk in certain women, the cause of breast cancer remains unknown and is not completely preventable. The real key to surviving breast cancer is early detection and treatment. See: FDA Approves Tamoxifen for Breast Cancer Prevention in High Risk Women
Note- there are many unavoidable environmental causes of breast cancer (pollution, food, chemical exposure...) and many more yet undiscovered ones. Living in a bubble and not eating your whole life is not an option.

6. "Having yearly mammograms will expose me to too much radiation and cancer will occur as a result."
Fact: According to the American College of Radiology, the benefits of annual mammograms far outweigh any risks that may occur because of the minute amount of radiation used during this screening and diagnostic procedure.See: Mammography Screening
Note- Don't worry about this!

7. "I’m not going to breastfeed because breastfeeding would increase my risk of getting breast cancer."
Fact: Just the opposite is true. Breastfeeding may actually decrease the risk of perimenopausal breast cancer. See: Breastfeeding Benefits Mom and Baby
Note- I didn't breast feed and still got cancer (but not the hormonal kind)


Source: Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation
More aboutBreast Cancer Myths

Finding the Lump

Posted by admin on 10/17/08

I was just at the doctor for my yearly exam in November and do my self-checks several times a month. In April I scratched an itch and found a lump. I made an appointment with my doctor who ordered a mammogram and ultrasound and referred me to a surgeon and that set off the chain reaction that is now my life. One appointment, test, or surgery after another.
More aboutFinding the Lump
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...