The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force issued new guidelines on breast cancer screening today that do away with the “every woman should have an annual mammogram starting at age 40” recommendation women have long heard from their doctors.

The new recommendations are:
• Screening mammography should not be done routinely for all women age 40 to 49 years.
• Women and their doctors should base the decision to start mammography before age 50 on a woman’s individual breast cancer risk and her understanding of the benefits and harms.
• Women age 50 to 74 years should have mammography every 2 years.
• More evidence is needed for the USPSTF to recommend for or against screening mammography after age 74 years.

The new recommendations also note that:
• The USPSTF recommends against teaching patients breast self-examination.
• Available studies do not provide enough information to know whether breast examination by a trained medical professional adds benefit beyond mammography.
• There is not enough information to know whether newer types of mammography (digital mammography) or magnetic resonance imaging are any better than regular film mammography results.

The USPSTF is a group of health care experts that reviews published research and makes recommendations about preventive health care, and it’s recommendations are considered the “gold standard” for clinical preventive services. This means that these recommendations are likely to be widely adopted and have the potential to broaden all women’s understanding of the benefits and harms of mammography as well as help them understand what we truly know—and how much we still need to learn–about breast cancer prevention and early detection.

Many doctors now advocate that women begin mammograms at age 40. But the fact is the decision to change the age at which mammography screening begins in this country from age 50 to age 40 was always controversial and was never unanimously supported. That’s because mammography is not as good a tool in younger women.

The studies also are pretty clear that whether you have a mammogram every year or every two years after 50 the results are about the same. In fact, most European countries do mammography every two years, with similar results to those in the U.S.

Furthermore, the use of breast self-exam to “find cancers at a curable stage” has never been supported by randomized controlled data.

Recommendations on mammography screening must also take into account our new understanding of the biology of breast cancer. We used to think that all cancers were the same, that they all grew at the same pace, and that there was a window when all breast cancers could be caught before they spread. We now know that there are at least five different kinds of breast cancer based on their molecular biology. Some breast tumors are so slow growing and are so unlikely to spread that they will never do any harm. Others grow and spread very quickly. The idea that they all can be “caught early” is wishful thinking. In fact screening is best at finding the “good ones” that might even disappear if left alone. Remember the reduced the mortality from mammography is 30% not 100%! If early detection always worked, the number of aggressive cancers we see would have gone down as a result of screening. But as a recent article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association made clear, that’s not what has happened.

The goal of breast cancer screening should be this: to find the cancers that have the potential to kill you, so that an intervention is necessary and can make a difference. We need to stop finding the cancers that will never do anything, and stop over-treating women who have them.

For this to occur, we need to do help women understand what mammography can and cannot do, and focus on finding the cause of breast cancer and preventing it altogether. I don’t want women going for mammograms they don’t need, or feeling I false sense of security because they have had one. I want them to have the opportunity to take part in the research that we need to go beyond a cure! That’s the reason we started the Love/Avon Army of Women. []. And that’s why I need you and everyone you know to sign up today!

Share →

144 Responses to The New Guidelines for Mammography

  1. Maggie-in-AZ says:


    I had my first mammo at age 35 in 1987, thanks to a pro-active gyno. It showed calcifications. I had an annual mammo until 1997, when a different gyno, following the “guidelines” at the time, told me I only needed them every 2 years. Unfortunately, I trusted him. Several months later, I found a lump, had a mammo, which was inconclusive (found something, not sure what it was). My PCP, radiologist, gyno – none of them would recommend a biopsy over waiting 6 more months for a followup mammo.

    I demanded that my PCP give me a referral to a surgeon, told the surgeon I wanted the lump removed, not just a biopsy. Turned out to be a small cancerous tumor – WITH POSITIVE LYMPH NODES. I was then required to have chemotherapy & 7 weeks of radiation.

    If I had not skipped the 1997 mammo, it could have been found sooner, before it had spread to the lymph nodes.

    How much does it cost to find cancer early, as opposed to treating a more serious case? My radition alone was $40,000 in 1998. My chemo was almost that much. My surgery was also substantial amount.

    A mammogram costs around $200.

    I’d rather go through 10 false positives than go through chemo again.

    The new digital mammograms are safer, and there are also ultrasounds & MRI’s if there are questionable results. So there’s no excuse for telling a woman not to get an annual mammogram. It not only saves lives – it saves money.

    I turned to your book when I was first diagnosed, but I’ve lost all respect for you. I’m leaving the Army of Women. You have let us down very badly.

    At least HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is using her brain. She stated today that the US government is NOT CHANGING there recommendations for mammograms.

  2. Maggie-in-AZ says:

    A comment on the post from Canada. My friend’s sister-in-law was living in Canada when she was diagnosed with breast cancer. She was told she would have to wait 6 months just to get an MRI. She and her husband moved to the US temporarily while she underwent treatment here. They decided they would rather pay for treatments here than wait until it became available in Canada.

  3. Karen says:

    Dear Susan,
    I was surprised when I realized your stance on the new recommendations, but was certainly willing to hear what you had to say because I do consider you to be an expert. The problem for me was that during the interview I watched with you and a man from the American Cancer Society, you kept butting in and speaking to/over him in a condescending manner. I wanted to hear HIS views as well since a change in screening could potentially affect my health and that of others I know. I had a right to hear what HE had to say as well. You were disrespectful to him and a bully. Your stance is not why I’ve withdrawn my support for your “Army,” but it was your obnoxious know-it-all attitude.

  4. Keko says:

    This makes so sense to me. False positives are a reason not to test? I’ll take anxiety over actually having cancer any day. Also, even if the mortality is “only” reduced by 30%, isn’t that better than nothing? You also cite that 50 is an average menopausal age. Average! My mother went throught it at 42. I am almost 40 and experiencing early signs. I personally know SEVERAL instances where a mammogram saved a life of someone in their 40’s–high risk or not. Also, you yourself up until 2 days ago recommended women start screening in their “early 40’s” despite the “controversial” recommendations that were in place. If insurance companies take this recommendation as gospel on which to base benefits (and they will) this could be disastrous. Even those who have risk factors will be fighting to get a mammogram covered. This is not good medicine…In fact it smells a lot like politics to me.

  5. Stephanie - 9 yrs stage IV BC says:

    The plot has thickened. The liberals who got the Obama administration elected are trying to get their “dues.” The SPIN on the govt-appointed task force’s (which included NO oncologist or radiologist, and was not PEER reviewed)findings is worse than any political election.

    Dr. Love has a steering committee for her foundation. Fran Vesco, who founded Breast Cancer Action, is on it. Breast Cancer Action is really the only group I could find which seems to completely agree with this nonsense.

    This “preventative” (don’t you just LOVE that name) task force is only looking for ways to “save on wasteful spending” that the administration has promised that will pay for the proposed new health care plan.

    People are starting to ask WHERE all the waste is going to be cut. And women’s breast health is first on the chopping block. Let’s hope and pray these “recommendations” do not become “policy” in a 20,000 page congressional bill that no one reads and the vote is taken at 3 am.

  6. I,like so many other women feel as if medicine as taken a giant step backward. My sister died with breast cancer at the age of 28 because this was before screening was done. I also have a sister 45 that is alive today because of screening. If these guidelines are followed and screening is reduced what will the outcome be? How many women will die before, in another ten years, a new study is done that states yes screening should be done to help prevent cancer. My prayers are with all women at this time.Without screening prayer may be all we have left.

  7. Susan-44yrs. old - stage1 says:

    Dr. Love, Please – respond to these replies! I was diagnosed at 44 – my INVASIVE tumor found by a mammogram, and not a digital mammogram. It was non palpable – and 10 doctors at 2 cancer centers could not find it manually knowing where it was. I have no family history and if these guidelines were in place would not have had mammograms.

    My life matters. 1 in 1900 does matter – just ask my kids and husband.

    How absurd to compare the stress of a negative biopsy from a false positive mammogram to saving lives.

    Most of the women I know are diagnosed in there 30’s and 40’s without risk factors.

    Please respond.

  8. Susan says:

    I am one of those who found a lump through diligent self-examination. Who is better to recognize early changes than someone familiar with her own breasts? My cancer was fast-growing and was not detected by mammogram. With these guidelines, I am pretty sure my diagnosis would have been beyond Grade 2 by the time the lump was large enough to be noticed. This is the scariest thing I have ever heard. Please rethink this one. All women need the opportunity for early diagnosis and treatment. I believe that these guidelines will be used by insurance companies to limit coverage for tests that we have fought so hard to obtain! The statistics show that we are doing better in the battle but we have far to go. Why set us back??????

  9. NS says:

    Thank you for your feedback everyone. Please read this special message from Dr. Love

  10. Susan McMillan says:

    I am saddened and sicken by Dr. Susan Love’s recommendation’s regarding not having mammograms until age 50. I would be dead had I not gotten my mammogram. After many years of normal ones a mammogram detected stage three cancer . So now…the supposedly queen of breast cancer has gone against women of all ages. How could you do this? This is only going to confuse women, discourage them from getting mammograms that could save their lives and insurance companies now won’t have to pay for the much needed screenings. Dr. Susan Love, how can you sleep at night?

  11. Laura says:

    Just another woman still kicking thanks to a routine mammogram. My tumor went from 0 to over an inch in less than the two years recommended, and I was 44! I didn’t know I had family history, so I would have waited 6 years had I followed Dr. Love’s endorsement, with the tumor doubling in size every 60 days. So what are we going to do about it? If you have ideas about protest, specifically a march of women who would have died, or an art project or something, let me know at

  12. Laura says:

    Don’t do BSE because we can’t prove it can find tumors at a curable stage? What???? If there is a chance in a million, I would want it. Even if not, I would want to know I had incurable cancer at the earliest possible moment, to give myself the most choice about how to spend my days. How can we so disrespect a woman’s right to know just to save a few bucks on false positives? Or are we still mired in the condescending ethic that women are better off not knowing because they’ll just worry? We don’t tell me not to do testicular exams despite that possibilty. We don’t tell them not to get a PSA even though there are false positives. We must organize a response, or we will be written off as “anecdotes” as the next generation of young women die.

  13. Cindy says:

    I’m completely appalled by this giant step backwards.

    1) For those who posted about agreeing w/ Dr Love because they were “over-treated”, this isn’t about treatment, this is about EARLY detection and testing. Treatment is a totally separate issue. The point here is about FINDING the cancer. First you need to FIND it and then manage and deal w/ treatment. How can you possibly agree w/ supporting NO early detection theory because YOU were over-treated? Many will die (and are dying) from not detecting soon enough. Look at the whole picture and think about others LIVES please. Not everyone had your same experience or cancer type.

    Once people know they have cancer they can then figure out what treatment is best. If some people are over-treated as a result of early detection that’s unfortunate, but don’t blame the “knowledge” of the cancer’s presence for an Oncologist over-treating you.

    2) For those who posted about the other countries waiting until 50 -saying US should jump on the band-wagon….just because other countries do it doesn’t make it right and many woman die as a result. Apparently YOU haven’t had a loved affected by this, have you? Maybe you’d change your mind if you did.

    3) For the woman who agrees w/ Dr Love because she never had a mammo and found her own cancer: did you know the guidelines also advise against self-exam? Before you agree w/ Dr Love, read all the guidelines….where would you be if you listened to them back then?

    In general I am sickened. Here, we’ve been trying to teach women to be in touch with their bodies, self exam and report changes. We advise women to get mammograms on time. If my best friend (in her 40’s)had been doing self exams and was on time w/ her mammogram, they would have found the cancer much sooner. She would not have stage IV today. She will die young as a result. And here you are taking woman completely backwards. Why is saving lives being minimized? Mind boggling and angering!! We have to fight this. Going backwards should not be an option.

  14. Sue in Boston says:

    I found a small lump 14 years ago at age 39. Had lumpectomy/radiation following the diagnosis of grade I/II invasive cancer .5cm with no lymph node involvement. No matter how many mammograms I had it never showed up. Now 14 years later age 53 with still dense breast tissue I had a breast MRI. We found another tumor, same breast and quadrant (new cancer)1.5cm invasive grade I/II (no lymph nodes left to biopsy) but Oncotype DX score of 16: low grade slow growing, 10% chance over 10 years to possibly lead to anything more. This time I had skin saving mastectomy/reconstruction because second round of radiation is out of the question. I have had over 20 mammograms since age 39 and this tumor was never seen. Even after MRI, knowing where the mass was, the tumor was not seen. I believe that this tumor was there, in my breast 14 years ago, most likely smaller, but there none the less. I also believe that my first tumor, perhaps needed to be removed for my own peace of mind, but that radiation to the whole breast was overkill. But even if I did not find that tumor, I am not so sure having it sit for these 14 years would have been a worse scenario for me, since my second one was sitting there doing no harm. My oncologist commented about the fact that 14 years ago if my first tumor was the size of this one I would have had chemo no mater what. “We over treated women back then” was her exact words. Lets look forward 10 years and we will be saying “We over treated women back then”. We just need better tests and screenings to give us chances for better decisions. I know we will get there.

  15. Linda Johnson says:

    With all respect I am very disappointed that you support the new mammogram guidelines. The lump I found, at 36, was not cancer. The mammogram taken, because of the lump, found the malignant micro-calcifications.

    Don’t you really believe healthcare for breast cancer shouldn’t move backwards?

  16. Pam from West chester says:

    This proposal is an absolute outrage!!! Are you really a proponent for saving women’s lives?

    My dear friend Patty had her baseline at 35. At 41 had her second mammogram which showed 2 tumors on one side and she was already at stage 3. After aggresive treatment, she lost her battle with this ugle disease 18 months later. She left behind a devastated husband and 4 beautiful, young children.

    Please reconsider your stance!! Many lives of mothers, daughters, wives, sisters and friends are now at risk!

  17. Ann Bardin says:

    Dr. Love–I’m a 2x bc survivor who was not in a high risk category and whose bc was found, both times, by mammography. I found it curious that we should not do self exams because we might find a lump that just might kill us; I find it curious that ultrasound was not suggested for younger women; I find it curious that the cut-off date is 74 y/o (why not 73 or 75.2); and I find it offensive that anyone determines what my appropriate level of anxiety should be–that’s just plain rude and patronizing. As someone who has admired you for a very long time, I think you need to offer a better explanation than you did on your blog.

  18. wow, it’s very evident by all these comments that a lot of women get diagnosed in their 30’s and 40’s. These are the ones in 1,900 that mammograms actually helped???? Are these lives worth saving to you Dr. Love? I was diagnosed at 44, just finished chemo and am headed to radiation. I thank God every day that I was familiar with my breasts and felt my lump, followed with a mammogram rated a bi-rad 5. I am so thankful that I have good doctors who care about my life taking care of me. I have lost all respect for you. To those of you leaving comments supporting Dr. Love, I notice that none of you have actually been diagnosed with invasive breast cancer, hmmm, interesting. Good luck to you, hope you don’t have cancer now and wait till 50 to get checked out.

  19. Ben says: conducted a study among 600 about the new guidelines released by the Preventive Services Task Force of the Department of Health and Human Services recommending against regular mammography tests for women under 50 years old. Results found that the majority of physicians (78%) reported that they do not agree with the new guidelines. Furthermore, the majority of physicians (78%) also reported that the advice they give to patients will not change based on the new Preventive Services Task Force of the Department of Health and Human Services guidelines.
    More in depth results can be seen at:

  20. R Smith says:

    One of the posters made a very good point related to the technology of mammograms. Obviously if they are yielding too many false positives while
    ramping up radiation exposures ove years, and if they are not even finding the very lumps they are supposed to,m too many times, then someone should be on the air waves suggesting an investigation of the technology and how it is hindering or hurting women in their quest to be properly screened for breast cancer. As I recall some time ago the same was brought up about other health screening technologies. Might I dare to think that the INDUSTRY making megabucks off women might shrink from a Congressional investigation of mammography and the state of the art.. as well as some of the ill trained techs who perform these.. or the erratic procedures and machines from city to city, state to state. Let’s dig deeper and find out.

  21. kitty says:

    With all due respect to survivors’ posts here, but don’t you understand the concept of overdiagnosis? Just because your cancer was diagnosed doesn’t mean it saved your life. It may well be the case that your specific cancer would’ve never spread if remained undetected. If every single cancer detected by mammograms corresponded to lives saved than the statistics would’ve looked very different than it does. Studies show that as much as a third of mammogram-detected cancers represent overdiagnosis and you still claim that in your specific case it was not? The number of DCIS is not high enough to account for so much overdiagnosis. Some early invasive tumors may well be among overdiagnosed cases as well.

    Cancers spread at different speeds. Some are so aggressive that would kill you anyway and because they spread so quickly they are the ones mammograms are more likely to miss or find after they’ve already spread. Some spread so slowly that even if they are found later e.g. when you can feel the tumor they are still treatable. Some are indolent, regress or spread so slowly that they will never cause problems in your lifetime yet if found with mammograms you’ll be treated and suffer side effects of the treatment, potentially life long side effects. Mammograms only make a difference to a specific subset of cancers – those which are destined to spread between the time they are diagnosed with mammograms and the time you notice them. Unless you have a crystal ball, you don’t know which is which.

    Yes you may be this 1 in 1900. But you also be one of the women to have received unnecessary treatment…

  22. Cheryl says:

    I guess I am also one of 1900 diagnosed before age 50 because of my mammogram. Regardless of what you might think I know that mammo saved my life. My lump was very deep and could not be felt, but was aggressive. Instead of loosing my breast, or worse my life I was saved by a lumpectomy, chemo, rads and now an AI….I am thankful for that mammo and the fact I am still here with my family.

    I am concerned that my daughter will not be able to get her mammo covered early even though she is at risk because of my cancer. My Onc encouraged her to have a baseline this year (25 years) and go from there as indicated, but her insurance has already refused to cover it as she is not “at risk enough”…this study only gives insurance more reason to say NO (a word they already love and use often)

  23. Ron Dionne says:

    Prevention Task Force…..16 members. 12 are educators and 4 are medical directors/officers. No practicing oncologist is involved with these recommendations.

  24. Marianne S. says:

    The findings of this task force is insane at best, and it seems that we have a whole new Army of Women at hand here. An army that we, who have or had breast cancer, should be on the task force, instead of a government appointed panel of people who obviously have no idea what they are talking about. The whole study reeks of pushing this country towards socialized medicine, where you will not even have the choice of whether or when to get a mammo let alone treatment should you be diagnosed.
    I was diagnosed with BC when I was 48. Had I been smarter and gotten my mammo’s yearly, I could have been diagnosed sooner and probably not had to go thru chemo. The only part of that task force I would even remotely agree with are the self exams. My cancer was too deep at the time of discovery to be felt and it was already 2.5 cm. By the time I would have felt it, well I am just so thankful for a primary care physician that ordered a chest x-ray as part of a physical,and a radiologist that picked up a “shadow” and suggested a chest cat scan and mammo.
    As it stands I had surgery,chemo and radiation and am on a 5 year drug to try to prevent BC from coming back. Women know that we are most vulnerable in our 40’s ,especially with estrogen based cancers, but I have sat with, during my chemo and radiation, more women who are much younger, too many in their 30’s and one who was 27. And they would have died if not diagnosed early.
    Furthermore belonging to this group, the Army of Women, I am furious that Dr. Love has agreed with these new “findings”. I urge her to please reconsider, and listen to us, the survivors. We as survivors must start being involved to help our sisters,daughters, families be able to fight this disease, as early as possible. I want to belong to a group like Army of Women, to support and be supported by women going through this… but not if it follows these ridiculous “findings” and can contribute to any woman delaying early diagnosis of BC. There are too many women terrified to get a mammo tobegin with. This just gives them a very dangerous excuse not to get one.

  25. Carol says:

    Please remove my name and e-mail address from all further correspondence from the Army of Women… After watching Dr. Love on national tv state that she agrees with the guidlines for not starting mammograms until age 50,I have lost all respect for her and her beliefs in regard to when to begin annual mammograms.
    My 44 year old daughter lost both breasts to cancer last fall,we do have strong family history, but there are 5 women in her age group in her daughters freshman class at school that also were diagonosed in their 40’s about the same time she was, with no family history of the disease. all have gone thru chemo and or radiation treatment. I shudder to think where these 6 women would be if they had not had their yearly mammograms, which revealed in all of the womens cases their cancers if they had waited until age 50 to have their mammograms. I am deeply disappointed in Dr. Loves support of the latest recommendations.

  26. Yvonne says:

    Wow. A lot of negative responses to Dr. Love’s support of new mammogram guidelines. I had a mammogram and it did not find anything. Yet I was diagnosed with DCIS. I think the negative reaction is due to lack of understanding of the medical details involved. Every case is different. Just because a mammogram finds cancer in one person here or there out of the millions of women taking the test does not mean that everyone should take the exam. And the guidelines don’t FORCE you to NOT take the test. If you are at high risk, common sense would dictate that you should probably take the test before age 50. Even before these guidelines, my doctor was insistent that I take a mammogram after 40, but I didn’t because I don’t have any risk factors. And my diagnosis for DCIS was low grade and considered precancer. I don’t think there is a need to lash out at Dr. Love or anyone else who supports the new guidelines. You can make your own decision based on your history, risk factors and doctor’s opinion.

  27. Mary says:

    Are we really reading the recommendations here?

    The following is quoted directly from Dr. Susan Love’s blog.
    The new recommendations are:
    • Screening mammography should not be done routinely (routinely being the operative word, here) for all women age 40 to 49 years.
    • Women and their doctors should base the decision to start mammography before age 50 on a woman’s individual breast cancer risk and her understanding of the benefits and harms.
    • Women age 50 to 74 years should have mammography every 2 years.
    • More evidence is needed for the USPSTF to recommend for or against screening mammography after age 74 years.

    The choice for mammograms before 50 is left to the woman and her doctor.

    Women over 74 are not automatically ruled out of screenings. More evidence is needed for that to be recommended.

    I, too, am a cancer/treatment survivor. The 2.4 cm lump never did show up on mammogram because it hid within dense tissue. I found it poking around. Oh, and you don’t have to be pre menopausal to have dense tissue or a Her2 positive tumor. I absolutely agree that better screening methods need to be found, because the “gold standard” fails so many. We definitely need a more global screening approach, so all women, regardsess of breast type. are adequately screened whether it be every year or every two years.

    Mammography failed me big time. If the cancer had been caught sooner I would still have a breast!

  28. Ann Perkins says:

    1. Could be that they have discoverd all this xray mess is actually causing cancer.

    2. Could be the insurance companies are putting pressure on them to cut the cost, thus cut the testing; mamos and paps… coincidence…. give me a break.

    3. Question: Did they cut the prostrate exams?

    Its about women and money ladies… nothing more, no one can tell me differently.

    Too bad.

  29. Ann says:

    Once again I find myself in agreement with Dr. Love. I was diagnosed with a “lump” by a CNM during my annual gyne. exam. A follow-up mamo did nothing to clarify the situation and given that I was 34 at the time – a mammo would never have found the lump given the density of my breasts at the time and the location (high up in the external reaches of the quadrant). I was referred to a surgeon who thought we should remove the lump just to be safe and given that the location made removal easy. I was never worried about anything up until the final pathology came in and it turned out that this pea shaped lump bearing no resemblance to a typical cancer turned out to be a malignant and invasive form of breast cancer. I was lucky and had lupectomy, 4 rounds of high dose chemo (I was also offered a tamoxifen clinical trial- but opted for the chemo) and 6 weeks of radiation. So here I am almost 15 years later and can tell you that I believe in Dr. Love – because at my age mammography would not have helped me – I do get mammo’s evey year now – but I’m now in a different risk category. However I still feel my best line of defense is the hand’s on exam done by a medical professional – preferably a surgeon at a breast center. I have been told that surgeons hands are better at giving the breast exams because of their experience with removing tumors and also because they tend to examine more women with questionable lumps and have learned to better distinguish between those that are cancer vs. those that are “nothing to worry about”. Whether or not their is evidence to support this I don’t know but it sure seems to make sense to me – and so far that approach has worked for me. Even though I have the mammo’s – a negative mammo result does not make me feel lie I have a clean bill of health – I know full well they are not a perfect diagnostic tool.

  30. Kim Rodgers says:

    Although I understand you are a Dr., you need to get your facts straight. The mammography guidelines were NOT controversial. The US Task Force under Pres. Clinton passed the guidelines in 1997 for women ageg 40 – 49 to get mammograms every year or two. I am a 40 yr old very healthy woman and have ER+, PR+, HER2+ and Sent node involvement with NO palpatable tumor. (Stage llA, Grade 3) If I wasn’t allowed to get a mammogram, by 50 I would be DEAD. Extra money for our country raising my two small children!! Being a breast cancer advocate (or so you say), you should be aware that breast cancer among younger women is much more aggressive than cancer in the over 50 population. Do your homework…..

  31. Kim Rodgers says:

    Maybe instead of cutting guidelines because of the 10% failure rate, we should push MRI’s for the younger, more “dense breasted” community.

  32. Luigi Fulk says:

    Just to say nice site and interesting posts. If any readers are interested in lymphedema treatment they can check this site out

  33. Terry Kremenich says:

    The new recommendations are WRONG. I was diagnosed with stage II breast cancer. It was found through my annual mammogram. I have no family history of breast cancer. I did not feel a lump. This important diagnostic tool saved my life.

    I’m glad I have doctors that care, and not doctors like Susan Love, who advocate changing the age of routine mammograms for women in their 40s. Ladies, get your mammograms. I am proof that they are a lifesaving tool. Fight this change with all of your power – write to your newspapers, congressional representatives, the surgeo general, while you’re still alive to do so.

  34. kathleen schultz says:

    Well I don’t know how I feel about this. I never went for my mammogram at 40. I was nursing. I was also nursing at 41, and most of 42. By the time I had my mammogram, I was 44. And guess what? I had stage II invasive ductal carcinoma that has spread to four lymph nodes. But what really brought me in…..Well it was because I noticed a change in my breast. I had crusting on the breast (paget’s disease) and my nipple was starting to look inverted. I had a small tumor. 1.6cm that could not be felt by me or any surgeon and that did not show up on a mammogram. It showed up in the ultrasound but it was deep and therefore vague. Perhaps a mammogram at 40 would have me in a better place right now. This is an aggressive cancer, Her2+ and hormone receptor negative. I am confident I will be ok and it was caught early enough to give me a chance. I have young children. However, if I had waited until I were 50 to get a mammogram I would be dead. So then, some would say well it’s not worth all the fuss to save one person or a small amount of people. Tell that to my 8 and 5 year old though.

  35. kathleen schultz says:

    And it is stage III, forgot a I!!!

  36. adsense says:

    Hi, I found your website @ yahoo and i have read allot of your other posts. I love what u post! I just added you to my Google News Reader ;). Keep up the good work . Look forward to see more from you in the future.

  37. Renee Brown says:

    I have done well on Femara with metastatic breast cancer for a year and a half. I am also diabetic and obese. In spite of everything I have not been able to lower my weight or my glucose. My endocrinologist has suggested cosidering gastric bypass surgery. I asked my breast oncologist if there was any danger of the cancer spreding if I have a gastric bypass but she doesn’t know of any research on that. Do you have any research showing the safety (or not)of gastric bypass surgery with metastatic b.c.? My metasteses is to the bones with hyperplasia in the uterus.

  38. i joined your rss reader.thanks for sharing.

  39. Charlotte says:

    I had a D&C four weeks ago and they said the biopsy showed Focul Simple Hyperplasia. I went in because I was not having regular periods and mostly long term spotting. They now have me on 400mg Prometrium for 10 days each month for six months to get me to have a period. They said they do not think I am ovulating anymore. Is 6 months a long time to be on this stuff or is it o.k. for 6 months and if they want me to stay on it after 6 months, is that really necessary. I am not overweight and my sisters and Mother went through Menopause in their late 40’s and were done by 50 or 52. I am just concerned about taking the stuff and wondering how long I should actually be on it.

  40. Cletus Gregware says:

    Treatment for lymphedema varies depending on the severity of the edema and the degree of fibrosis of the affected limb. Most people with lymphedema follow a daily regimen of treatment as suggested by their physician or certified lymphedema therapist. “`”

    With kind thoughts

  41. Dominique Pohlson says:

    Typically, lymphoma presents as a solid tumor of lymphoid cells. Treatment might involve chemotherapy and in some cases radiotherapy and/or bone marrow transplantation, and lymphomas can be curable depending on the histology, type, and stage of the disease.:’..

    Newly released posting produced by our new web site

  42. I just dont I dont have a weight for eating 5 small meals last Friday
    cause I was out of town. The diet is the best way to get rapid results!
    I don’t have to make sure I have my paper there all the time then, let me inform you that you can’t have other great foods as well like meat and chicken.

  43. Sheldon says:

    Hi to every body, it’s my first go to see of this blog; this web site contains remarkable and truly fine information in favor of visitors.

  44. Greetings from Colorado! I’m bored to tears at work so
    I decided to browse your site on my iphone during lunch
    break. I enjoy the info you provide here and can’t wait
    to take a look when I get home. I’m amazed at how quick your blog loaded on my mobile ..
    I’m not even using WIFI, just 3G .. Anyways, superb site!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *