Hi everyone, I need some advice. My paternal grandmother and great grandmother died of breast/ovarian cancer. I have had two biopsies and so far have been told I have fibrocycstic breasts and a cluster of calcifications (not biopskied) that are ok, because they are in the skin. I am 36. My ob/gyn wants me to have mammos every year, but when they were doing mammos for the calcifications, they chose not to use their new digital mammo machine, and thus couldn't see that they were on the skin, and x-rayed me over, and over, and over again, probably 20 times. Then I went to another place, they did one digital, and told me they were skin calcifications. So, I'm trying to avoid a lot of unnecessary radiation, thank you very much, and my doctor strikes me as someone who simply wants to avoid a lawsuit (I'm a lawyer). But I don't want to not have a mammo every year if I really ought to be. Any advice??? :confused:

I have been struggling with the same dilemma... Normally they have you do a mammo a year (or every two yrs) after the age of 40. If a first degree relative has had breast cancer, then they recommend that mammos start ten yrs before the age of cancer diagnosis of your relative (mother/sister). My mother was diagnosed with breast cancer at 45, so I was told I should start at 35. I did, I got a false positive, I got more radiation with the spot compression views, and was told to get another mammo after 40. This was the opinion of the imaging center technician. My gynos over the yrs have been chewing me out for yearly mammos. I am now 39. Last year I decided to get a mammo. Again, false positive, more spot compressions, more radiation. The imaging center nurse said that this would be happening to me if I kept getting mammos before 40, but the gyno insists that I should be having them anyway. Frankly, I choose not to. I know the risks, but I am determined not to expose myself to more radiation, stress and pain before my 40th birthday.

On the other hand, mammos ARE known to save lives and cancer runs strong in my family. I am investigating alternatives, such as ultrasound (which is good at catching cysts and lumps, but not microcalcifications) and mammotherm. I am not sure of the benefits of mammotherms, I would switch instantly if I knew they could spot microcalcifications as well as mammos are claimed to do. An additional problem is that I need a referral for these exams and my gyno, for sadly obvious reasons, will not prescribe anything else than a mammo for a routine screening test of the breasts.

One thing I do follow religiously: monthly self examination and yearly physical.

ElenaK, have you thought about MRIs? I've read about how they pick up a lot more problems than mammos, so you get a lot of false positives, but no radiation. I've been thinking about one.

I have heard a lot of good things about them... If only I could walk into an imaging center and ask for one!! Unfortunately, I need a referral and every gyno on my insurance plan gives me the same mammo spiel...

Mammos have been known to save lives, but I also think they are vastly overrated. They miss as many cancers as they catch and they do expose you to radiation, are painful, etc.