I just wanted to mention that the two earlier links in this thread about “painless” alternatives supposedly in development are articles from 2015 and 2018. Now it’s 2021. Apparently someone doesn’t think we’re in enough pain to warrant the trouble of actually producing a better machine.
I’m so sorry about your mom.
Yeah, with your history, you’ll be standing in line for the torture every year. Sigh. Once I got the diagnosis, I’m not tempted to skip either.
I don’t have time to read the thread through right now as I have to start work.
I just wanted to extend my sympathies to the OP and any other posters who have undergone this… procedure.
I just got home from doing mine (last was in 2017) and yes, it sucks!
Either that, or they couldn’t get those alternatives to work or give reliable information.
If the possible explanations are:
A) Despite the best efforts of a lot of highly motivated people, painless mammography technology is really difficult to develop,
B) Men are heartless assholes who just don’t give a damn about women’s suffering and refuse to put any real effort into developing painless mammo tech,
Why are you going with B?
It’s “C) Affects half the population once a year, therefore not a priority.”
I absolutely do NOT believe A) for one nanosecond! Grrr. The world produced a COVID vaccine in less than a year when it became a priority.
This is not and will never be a priority because what we’re doing now works, and the pain part is not even a blip on the radar of the medical equipment industry. Now if beaucoups of $$$ could be made by developing a new process, that might get someone’s attention. But doubling or tripling the cost of a mammogram (to pay for the R&D, amirite?) will be stomped to a paste by the insurance industry.
Cynical much? Yeah.
Actually, I believe the real reason is all the money the medical industry has invested in mammogram machines and technicians which would be lost if a real alternative (which again would cost money to implement) took over. A doctor I had probably 20 years ago told me that they already had ways to do the job that were less painful but no one wanted to invest in the technology.
Its far less than half, since women really only spend less than half their lives mammogram age. But that doesn’t justify not investing in ways to make it less painful/stressful. But it is an investment - and one that isn’t prioritized. And yeah, having spent my life as a woman, I’m cynical enough to believe that one of the reasons it isn’t prioritized is because its a women’s issue.
The current investment in mammo technology may be a factor but Radiology is big money, both for the hospitals and the equipment manufacturers.
In smaller hospitals at least, the organization loses money in almost every patient-care department except for Radiology and Surgery. Without the money they make in those two departments many would go under. For this reason there’s a great deal of competition to “woo customers” between hospitals in both of those areas. The hospital I work at just spent a bundle updating it’s mammo machines so they could advertise they have the same top-tier equipment the hospitals in the big cites have.
As soon as someone develops painless mammo tech which can diagnose just as well I’m certain we’ll see it quickly adopted. If it doesn’t diagnose as well it won’t be accepted. With all the new technology they have access to hospitals still use X-rays for viewing bones simply because nothing else works better.
I’ll just point out that administering that vaccine is not quite painless (although less uncomfortable than a mammogram) and it has side effects. For some people they’re next to nothing. Other people have wound up in bed for a day or two or even, in a few cases, the hospital. So the vaccine is far from perfect and these are reasons some people refuse it.
Coming up with medical stuff? Sure we can do that fast. Coming up with painless medical stuff is a bit more difficult and time consuming.
However, attempts at developing less painful mammograms did involve women who I’m sure were sincere and hard working, it wasn’t just a matter of men being mean to women.
Yes, that goes without saying. The Evil Insurance Empire is NOT your friend.
Just a bit, but you have solid reasons for it.
I agree with you on a lot of points.
^ And this. Sunk costs can be a real impediment to progress.
But it may also be that at present a mammogram in its present form is the best we can do. I of course hope that in the future we can do better, but we’re not there (yet).
Back in 2008 studies found CT scans to much less painful, and about as good at finding stuff (a little better for masses, a little worse for calcification, and about the same for lesions) as x-rays. And far, far less painful, did I mention that?
So I think it’s all about money and priorities.
So long as they can scare women into doing traditional profitable mammographies, there’s no real incentive to do anything else. The smash-em mammography works well enough diagnostically.
Also, while they always start by x-raying my bones, most of the time I go in with pain in the bones or connective tissue, I end up with an MRI, too. I suppose that’s to see the connective tissue, not the bones, but it’s not like they don’t use those machines.
Some of my women friends are always sent for breast MRIs, too, either instead of or in addition to mammograms.
My bold.
Um, not sure how to interpret this statement. Maybe you’d like to explain a little before I pounce on you? 
Eh, go ahead and pounce. I’m probably going to get a mammogram soon. But I have serious doubts as to whether it’s something that’s actually a good thing to do as a routine screening test. Unlike colonoscopies, scanning for skin cancer, and pap smears, I’ve yet to see a really convincing study showing it increases life expectancy for a cohort.
I wanted to pounce on the bolded part: that “THEY” (the bogeymen) are “scaring” women (implied) unnecessarily. Yeah, the prospect of breast cancer is scary, but it is a real thing, not an unlikely possibility, such as being attacked by invaders from Mars. I personally know at least half a dozen women who have had breast cancer, one of them age 25 when she found a lump in her armpit and couldn’t believe it could possibly be cancer due to her age. Two people I know (age 60-sh) have died from it.
The trouble with basing a decision about one’s individual action on stats and studies is that those only predict the likelihood of a given event happening to someone in a group.
This is one of those times when I make my decision based on the answer to this question: “How serious are the consequences if I get it wrong?”
In this case, well, death, or maybe not death, but long, icky treatment that may or may not end up in death anyway. And as someone with NO family, there won’t be people lining up to give me physical/logistical to help me through it, even if getting through it ends at the grave.
And anyway, mammograms have to be profitable or no one would offer them at all.
That’s interesting, I’d not heard that before.
You are getting a lot more radiation with a CT (it’s effectively many x-rays taken very quickly from many angles) than with a mammo or normal x-ray.
Perhaps they didn’t want to recommend women get a yearly CT.
Edit: reading further it said it was about the same radiation as a mammo. I’m sold. You can’t use a normal CT machine but that’s no big deal. I wonder if GE or other manufacturers have attempted to build them.
Also far, far more radiation. Which has side effects and long-term effects including cancer. While it is unlikely for it to happen from CT mammograms, there have been instances of people suffering radiation induced illnesses from either too many CT’s in too short a time or machine/operator malfunctions.
CT’s also cost something like an order of magnitude more than x-rays. So yeah, money, too.
Yes, women with small breasts can get breast cancer. My mother had breast cancer at age 65. Even with small breasts, the doctor missed the breast cancer on her first mammogram. (In hindsight, when they reviewed that initial mammogram, they could see the tumor) Nine months later, she asked me if the walnut sized mass (with orange peel skin texture) on the underside of her small breast was cancer. “yes, it is” was my reply. (she died 2.5 years later)
For many years, I wrote on my mammogram screening papers “Doctor missed my mother’s breast cancer on her first mammogram” I wanted them to feel guilty and pay attention.
My mammogram story: Sometimes, I have had to have 2 compressions for each view because my breasts flatten out so much they won’t fit on the plate. So, 8 compressions instead of 4. A friend calls them “smash-o-grams”
Don’t remember what insurance pays for here, but I get both, one after the other, because my breasts are fibrous and ample.
If the ultrasound is enough, any make me go through the squeezing? The last time was my 5th mammogram and it’s always the same. My breasts are not going to get suddenly smaller or less fibrous.
Oh damn! I am so sorry. Damn.
As I said above, ultrasounds are sometimes ordered in conjunction with mammograms for certain types of breast tissue. I do not believe they are preferable to or better than mammograms for detecting breast cancer.
Breast Ultrasound vs. Diagnostic Mammogram
Is a breast ultrasound better than a mammogram? Though a doctor might order both as a follow-up after an abnormal screening mammogram, there are several notable differences in the procedures. Some distinctions between the two are as follows.
- The imaging modality: Modality is the type of imaging used during a diagnostic test. Ultrasound uses sound waves to create images, while x-rays use radiation from electromagnetic waves to capture an image.
- The quality of images produced: Ultrasound and x-rays produce different types of pictures. Generally speaking, ultrasound images can’t capture microcalcifications. Those tiny calcium deposits can often be some of the earliest signs of breast cancer. However, a mammogram can detect them.
- The reasons for the imaging: A physician might order either an ultrasound or a diagnostic mammogram to follow up on an abnormal screening mammogram. A breast ultrasound has uses beyond being a follow-up tool. In some cases, a doctor will perform a breast biopsy, collecting a sample of tissue from the breast and testing it for cancer. They might use ultrasound imaging to guide the needle to the correct area of the breast.
Breast ultrasound is not currently a recommended screening tool for breast cancer, because it can miss many early signs of a tumor. Some patients might be better candidates for an ultrasound compared to a mammogram. Pregnant women should usually avoid having x-rays performed unless the imaging is essential. A breast ultrasound might be a suitable alternative to a mammogram during pregnancy. A breast ultrasound might also be a better option for younger women, particularly those in their 20s.
nope.
It is absolutely a real thing. The question is whether routine mammography actually reduces the mortality due to breast cancer. And the studies that have looked at that have been underwhelming, as described in posts 34 and 45.
As I said, I’m probably going to do it. But I always wonder whether it’s actually the wise choice.