I received this via email today...Beware of MammogramsBack during my pathology residency, we examined cancerous breast tissue under the microscope. It was quite shocking to see, but many times I found a track of cancer cells extending out from the main tumor in a straight line. I came to find out this track of cancer cells was actually from a previous needle biopsy!
Most surgeons would deny it ever happens, but…
Biopsies can actually disturb a tumor on a molecular level, pulling cancer cells into healthy breast tissue.
I always felt a mammogram could do the same thing. A mammogram creates such intense pressure to the breast tissue (not to mention the radiation showered on the breast), it’s possible that cancer cells could become dislodged.
Well, a new study published in the Journal of American Medicine seems to raise the possibility that my mammogram theory is correct.
Researchers in Norway studied more than 119,472 women (age 50 to 64) between 1996 and 2001 as part of a national breast screening program. These women were given a mammogram three times over a six year period.
Another control group of women (109,784 of the same age range) were followed over another six year period. These women did not receive bi-annual mammograms. Instead, they received a single screening mammogram at the end of the six year period.
Here’s where things got interesting. Believe it or not…
Cancer rates were 22 percent higher
among the women given regular mammograms!
In fact, at every age, the group of women who received regular mammograms had a greater chance of having breast cancer.
Did the mammogram itself actually increase the rate of breast cancer? Based on my experience in pathology, I believe this is a strong possibility.
The other possibility here—and one promoted by the Norwegian team—is that some of the cancers detected by mammography would have spontaneously disappeared if they had not been discovered and treated.
According to the authors of the report, this study raises the possibility that the natural course of some screen-detected invasive breast cancers is to spontaneously regress.’
Spontaneously regress! How’s that for a proof positive
the human body can and does naturally heal itself?
The report went on to say, ‘Although many clinicians may be skeptical of the idea, the excess incidence associated with repeated mammography demands that spontaneous regression be considered carefully.’
That’s my favorite part of the report.
The authors knew this data would be so shocking to regular old MDs…they even included it the report. Unfortunately, these skeptics are the ones who write orders everyday for their patients to get another mammogram. (Even though some data suggests every mammogram raises a woman’s breast cancer risk by 1%. Over a lifetime, annual mammograms could raise a woman’s risk by 30-40%!)
On the bright side...
I see it as a good sign that the study got published in JAMA. Maybe gynecologists over here will actually pay attention to the problems with mammograms. Maybe they’ll start believing again in the human body’s ability to heal itself.
Now, don’t get me wrong. It’s not that I think women shouldn’t get screened for breast cancer. There’s no doubt early detection boosts a woman’s survival rate.
But there’s a much better, safer, and more accurate alternative out there.
It’s called breast thermography. It’s a noninvasive test that uses infrared light to detect excess estrogen in the breast, the single greatest factor in the development of breast cancer (especially in young women under 50).
If a woman's thermogram suggests a progesterone deficiency (estrogen dominance), she can look for ways to balance her hormones and prevent cancer from developing.
In fact, because these tests measure hormone levels, they can actually help a woman stop cancer from ever developing. According to some data I’ve seen, thermograms warn a women of potential cancer up to 10 years before the typical mammogram, which can only identify actual cancer tumors that have reached a certain size.
In my opinion, this is a much more valuable tool
for women in preventing the disease before it takes hold.
Additionally, according to some data I’ve seen, thermograms are 90% effective in identifying breast cancer cells. (Mammograms claim to be 80% effective in women over 50. But it drops to 60% in women under 50.)
The problem is…there aren’t a lot of places in the U.S. that offer thermograms.
Why’s that, you ask?
Well, thermograms are cheap. And mammography is a billion dollar industry. Plus, what would we do with all the very expensive mammography equipment (not to mention all the highly trained techs)? And what about all the unnecessary biopsies that keep surgeons in business?
In any case, make sure next time you or a loved one sees their gynecologist, you ask about thermography as an alternative for the run-of-the-mill mammogram. You may have to travel a bit to find a qualified doc who offers thermography. Here’s a link to find one in your area:
http://www.breastthermography.com/find-a-center.htm If there’s not one in your area, make sure to put the pressure on your gynecologist to check it out.
Until next time,
Allan Spreen, M.D.
NorthStar Nutritionals
