Breast scan. No medical advice

missbiggles1

suki1964 wrote: »

This is from the public health agency phamplet sent along with the appointment details


It also goes on to say

"Screening saves about one life from breast cancer for every 200 women screened"

" about 3 in every 200 women screened every 3 years from the age of 50 to 70 are diagnosed with a cancer that would never have been found without screening and would never have become life threatening This adds up to 4000 women a year being given treatment they didn't need"


Now can you see why I'm concerned and am questioning it?


I did have a scare myself back in my 30's. I was very fortunate and saw one of the best breast cancer teams of the time. Within 48 hours of seeing my GP I was given the all clear. I have lumpy bumpy boobs . Lumps never got any bigger in 20 years. I trusted that surgeon who diagnosed by feel and ultra sound only

I'm afraid you're completely misreading the figures - this is, I think the pamphlet you're talking about.

chrome-extension://bpmcpldpdmajfigpchkicefoigmkfalc/views/app.html

(Sorry, that doesn't work as a link.)

It says that 40 out of 1000 women will need to have further tests and that, of those 40, 10 will be found to have cancer. Of that 10 in a 1,000, 8 will be found to have invasive cancer (which needs treatment) and 2 will be found to have non invasive cancer which may not need any treatment. That means, that of 1,000 women checked for breast cancer, 2 may end up getting unnecessary treatment.

That sounds like reasonable odds to me.

suki1964

missbiggles1 wrote: »

I'm afraid you're completely misreading the figures - this is, I think the pamphlet you're talking about.

chrome-extension://bpmcpldpdmajfigpchkicefoigmkfalc/views/app.html

(Sorry, that doesn't work as a link.)

It says that 40 out of 1000 women will need to have further tests and that, of those 40, 10 will be found to have cancer. Of that 10 in a 1,000, 8 will be found to have invasive cancer (which needs treatment) and 2 will be found to have non invasive cancer which may not need any treatment. That means, that of 1,000 women checked for breast cancer, 2 may end up getting unnecessary treatment.

That sounds like reasonable odds to me.

This is the publication sent out, can't get yours to work to see if it's the same one

http://www.cancerscreening.hscni.net/pdf/Breast_Screening_Helping_You_Decide_04_15.pdf

Page 13

I do hope I'm reading it wrong

Pollycat

If you do have a mammogram and are in the group who are found to have a cancer that would never have been found without undergoing screening and would not have been life-threatening, you at least have the option of then refusing treatment for a cancer thast may or may not be life-threatening.
Having treatment is not compulsory.

Finding cancers that would never have caused a
woman harm
About 3 in every 200 women screened every 3 years from the
age of 50 to 70 are diagnosed with a cancer that would never
have been found without screening and would never have
become life-threatening. This adds up to about 4,000 women
each year in the UK who are offered treatment they did not need.

But if you don't accept your invitation for screeening, you won't know about that cancer and therefore won't be able to make that choice.

I'd rather know that I have cancer that may or may not be life-threatening and make the choice what to do about treatment at that stage rather than being in ignorance about something that may or may not kill me.

theoretica

Pollycat wrote: »

I'd rather know that I have cancer that may or may not be life-threatening and make the choice what to do about treatment at that stage rather than being in ignorance about something that may or may not kill me.

While most breast cancers that are found still remain fatal, and there is something to be said for remaining in comfortable ignorance for longer. How much warning would you like of a fatal condition?

Personally, I have the luxury of not being that age yet, giving the researchers longer to work before I need to make a decision.

Pollycat

theoretica wrote: »

While most breast cancers that are found still remain fatal, and there is something to be said for remaining in comfortable ignorance for longer. How much warning would you like of a fatal condition?

Personally, I have the luxury of not being that age yet, giving the researchers longer to work before I need to make a decision.

Do you have statistics that define 'most'?

In my mind, there is absolutely nothing to be said for remaining in comfortable ignorance.
If I have a terminal illness, I want to know as soon as it's diagnosed so I can plan my remaining time and put my affairs in order.

theoretica

Pollycat wrote: »

Do you have statistics that define 'most'?

On looking deeper I withdraw 'most'. Sorry. The fatality rate is about 1/3 to 1/5. I was making the bad assumption that the majority of breast cancer is diagnosed through screening, when in fact it seems only about 1/4 is.

There is a useful infographic here: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/type/breast-cancer/about/screening/infographic

Cancer research say
There are 15,500 breast cancers diagnosed through screening in the UK each year.

Breast cancer care say
Every year nearly 60,000 people are diagnosed with breast cancer in the UK...
Nearly 12,000 people die from breast cancer in the UK every year

missbiggles1

suki1964 wrote: »

This is the publication sent out, can't get yours to work to see if it's the same one

http://www.cancerscreening.hscni.net/pdf/Breast_Screening_Helping_You_Decide_04_15.pdf

Page 13

I do hope I'm reading it wrong

Yes, that's the same one I took the figures from - pages 8, 9 and 10.

Dill

PasturesNew wrote: »

What age? I've never been asked/invited. Never had any test, nor heard of one at any "age"... or is that age 60-70?

I'd probably ignore it through fear ....

They start sending the blurb when you reach age 50 I think. They used to do it earlier but found far too many false positives, so they raised the age to 50. I wouldn't be surprised if they change it again, to be honest. It's a relatively new screening programme, and it's still a bit of a learning curve.

Regarding ignoring it, just bear in mind that they are invites, not commands. Attend if you want to, but you have every right to refuse if you do not.

DUKE

My breast cancer was grade 3 & very aggressive, I actually thought I would die at the time. But I had chemo, radio, Herceptin, & 5 years (of hell!!!) on Tamoxifen/Arimidex/Tamoxifen. I actually turned into a raving lunatic who wanted to kill people & I'd beat anyone in a row :eek: My Onco was the best, & he'd talk to you at great length, he said that years ago they had no treatment & died, so these days they tend to overdo things & give you the complete works. At that time I was too afraid not to have the treatment, & I'm not sure I'd have it again, but I think I'd still be afraid to say no. But you can say no to treatment, it's your body.

I've had recurring bladder cancer since 2012, & I really did think that it had come back to get me this time. But it's not life threatening as it's just grade 2 & it's confined to the bladder. Although if it spreads it could become life threatening. Apart from 2 op's a year to remove tumours, I get no other treatment as I'm allergic to everything these days. The treatment can cause more problems than the actual cancer.

triple_choc_chip

peachyprice wrote: »

I can only assume those who refuse on the grounds of those risks have not lost anyone to breast cancer yet.

How niaive, judgemental and passive aggressive is this?

I was diagnosed at 48yrs, Stage 3, 3 tumours and Her2+ after seeing a 'shadow' in the mirror. I had 6 months chemo, a mastectomy, radiotherapy and a year of herceptin. Horrid, but it was 2009 and I'm still here.

Do I have mammograms? No. I would have been dead before I qualified for the 1st one.

My largest tumour was 8cm and had grown to that in 4 months from the rate it was multiplying so my advice is don't rely on 3 or 5 yearly mammograms to save you, check yourself each month it's your best chance to get the earliest treatment.
TCC