Unveiling Mammography

My Breast Cancer Scare

Shortly after 2020, I made a discovery that every woman dreads: there was a lump in my breast. It had not been there before, and it was so large, I wondered how I had missed it before. But I had recently weaned my toddler from breastfeeding, and I hoped that the lump was simply because of the changes that come with weaning after two years of breastfeeding. Then another concerning symptom followed, and I immediately called my functional medicine nurse practitioner. I knew the risks of mammography and wanted my NP’s advice on alternatives. After her examination, she recommended thermography and helped me make an appointment. My scan did show just a very slight increase in temperature over the lump, and I was told to come back in three months for another scan. If there was any growth or increase in change, the scan would catch it. My NP also recommended further diagnostics with an ultrasound.

Here is where it got tricky. I was 32, and most clinics refused to perform an ultrasound without a mammogram because I was over 30. I refused to undergo a mammogram, so I kept searching for an imaging clinic. My NP finally found one and verified I could get an ultrasound without a mammogram. I called and confirmed as well. The day of the appointment finally came. I had made arrangements with my work-from-home job, and my husband took off work to care for our children. Just as I was leaving to go to my appointment, the clinic called me to tell me there had been a mistake; they required a mammogram. I explained to them I had been given breast ultrasounds in the past without a problem. They replied that because I was over 30, they wouldn’t know how to find the spot needing imagery. I told them I was not comfortable with the risk of radiation and absolutely refused to risk rupturing the tumor or cyst or whatever the lump was. The clinic told me rupture was impossible, which made me feel I was being lied to. I told them there are studies on Pubmed that say otherwise, and then I hung up and sobbed. My husband was so furious, he drove to the clinic and made a complaint in person.

A few days later, I drove to a different state to a clinic that promised me they would give me an ultrasound. They were true to their word. The ultrasound was quick, easy, and painless. A few days later, I received the results: a hypoechoic mass, most probably benign. The doctor told me I could ask for a biopsy but really didn’t need one. I decided not to get a biopsy, because a tumor protects the body by keeping the bad inside. I didn’t want to puncture it and let the contents spread.

Three months later, I went in for another thermography scan. It actually showed the mass was smaller in size and had less heat. I came back a year later, and it was gone.

Between my doctor’s examination, three thermography scans, and the breast ultrasound, I felt I had a good picture of an accurate diagnosis.

I share my story because I’m not just someone questioning conventional medicine. Instead, I am someone who truly thought I might have breast cancer, and as I searched for a medical provider who would take my concerns seriously, all I could think about were my very young children. I know the fear and the uncertainty that comes with finding a lump and waiting for a diagnosis. When I think of the radiation and tissue damage I could have endured from mammography – all for a benign tumor that would heal on its own – I feel passionate about sharing facts about mammography that aren’t being spoken to every woman before she makes an appointment for a mammogram. Below are the facts on the risks of mammography, including the low effect of mortality rates, risk of radiation, risk of rupture, risk of overdiagnosis, risk of inaccuracy for dense breast tissue, and the success of thermography that helped me make my decision.

Mammography’s Low Effect on Mortality Rates

There are multiple studies and publications showing that mammography has little to no effect on breast cancer mortality rates. The New England Journal of Medicine published a study in 2012 which revealed that women who had mammography screening were just as likely to die as women who didn’t have mammograms. (1) The British Medical Journal published a large mammography study, finding that screening average-risk women, who could not feel a lump in a self-exam, did not lead to lower breast cancer death rates for those in their 40s and 50s. (2) The National Cancer Institute conducted an analysis of several studies which included almost a half-million women and came to the conclusion that “Screening for breast cancer does not affect overall mortality.” (3) JAMA published an editorial which stated, “85% of women in their 40s and 50s who die of breast cancer would have died regardless of mammography screening.” (4)

Mammography’s Radiation Exposure

Low effect on mortality rates become an even bigger problem when mammograms also come with risks. Mammograms expose women to radiation. An article from 2017 states, “A woman’s breasts are one of her most sensitive areas when it comes to cancers caused by radiation exposure. Dr. David Brownstein says, ‘Unfortunately, screening mammograms, used for nearly 30 years, have never been shown to alter breast cancer mortality. Moreover, to make matters worse, mammography exposes sensitive tissue to ionizing radiation, which actually causes cancer.’ Dr. Russell Blaylock says studies show mammograms actually increase a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer from 1-3% per year, depending on the technique used. If women religiously undergo a mammogram every year for 10 years, they increase their risk from 10-30%. ‘By the age of 50, a full 45% of women will have cancer cells in their breasts. This does not mean that all these women will develop breast cancer, because in most women these cancer cells remain dormant. What it does mean is that, if you are one of these 45% of women, you are at high risk of spurring these cancer cells to full activity (when exposing their breasts to radiation).’”(5)

Unfortunately, radiation from mammograms may be incorrectly calculated because mammograms use low energy X-rays. The British Journal of Radiology states, “Recent radiobiological studies have provided compelling evidence that the low energy X-rays as used in mammography are approximately four times–but possibly as much as six times–more effective in causing mutational damage than higher energy X-rays. Since current radiation risk estimates are based on the effects of high energy gamma radiation, this implies that the risks of radiation-induced breast cancers for mammography X-rays are underestimated by the same factor.” (6)

Mammography’s Risk of Rupture

Risk of rupture concerned me the most. I knew I had a lump. How much pressure could it withstand? A functional medicine institution provided information on risk of rupture: “Mammography involves compressing the breasts between two plates in order to spread out the breast tissue for imaging. Today’s mammogram equipment applies 42 pounds of pressure to the breasts. Not surprisingly, this can cause significant pain. However, there is also a serious health risk associated with the compression applied to the breasts. Only 22 pounds of pressure is needed to rupture the encapsulation of a cancerous tumor. The amount of pressure involved in a mammography procedure therefore has the potential to rupture existing tumors and spread malignant cells into the bloodstream.” (7)

A case report published in the British Medical Journal describes a woman who received a routine mammogram. She had no clinical symptoms before the mammogram and had been finding no irregularities during her routine self-examinations. During the mammogram, the woman felt extreme pain and said, “I think we need to stop… something is really wrong.” The technician only said, “Hold your breath. It will be over in a minute.” By the time the woman made it to the parking lot, she had significant pain and swelling. At home, bruising became visible. She laid still all weekend and called the doctor the following week, receiving advice to take paracetamol (acetaminophen). When the pain worsened, she returned to the doctor, who said her mammogram showed only a low suspicion finding. He ordered another mammogram, although she refused to undergo more compression. After several more appointments and meeting with a trauma surgeon who said she had “extensive bruising,” she underwent ultrasound-guided drainage. It was then that a carcinoma was found. The tumor was rapidly growing, and she went through chemotherapy, radiation, and mastectomy. The cancer kept recurring over the years, and she died in 2012, four years after the painful mammogram. (8)

Mammography’s Risk of Overdiagnosis

Some studies have found that mammograms cause an overdiagnosis of breast cancer, which then leads to unnecessary treatment. One study from 2023 found overdiagnosis to be substantial in women older than 70. Depending on age groups, 31-54% of women in the study were diagnosed incorrectly as having breast cancer. In addition, screening did not prevent deaths related to breast cancer. (9)

Another study from the New England Journal of Medicine states, “Despite substantial increases in the number of cases of early-stage breast cancer detected, screening mammography has only marginally reduced the rate at which women present with advanced cancer. Although it is not certain which women have been affected, the imbalance suggests that there is substantial overdiagnosis, accounting for nearly a third of all newly diagnosed breast cancers, and that screening is having, at best, only a small effect on the rate of death from breast cancer.” (1)

Mammography Vs. Ultrasound for Dense Breast Tissue

Many women have dense breasts. Dense tissue shows up white on mammograms – just like tumors do. This makes mammograms less reliable for women with dense breasts – so much so that some states have laws requiring doctors to inform women of their breast density and how that affects mammogram screening. Michigan and Illinois are two of those states. (10)

Automated Whole-Breast Ultrasound (ABUS) is another alternative for women with dense breasts. “ABUS captures breast tissue in its entirety in a 3D image, allowing radiologists to see the breast in three different planes and giving them an advantage in finding cancers.” (11) Doctors are recommending women get a mammogram and ABUS, but it seems to me ridiculous to tell a woman she must get a test done that is ineffective and comes with risks when another test exists that does not come with risks and produces more accurate results.

Thermography

Thermography is still a fairly new diagnostic procedure. It is a no-contact scan that measures temperature and blood flow. Most technicians have patients get the first scan, called the baseline, and then a second scan to assess changes. Thermography can be used to screen for several diseases. One study found thermography to be 89-94% accurate in screening for Type II Diabetes and 96% accuracy in screening for autism. Some diseases had much lower accuracy, such as peripheral arterial disease and herpes. (12)

A comparative review published in Integrative Cancer Therapies found thermography to be 84% accurate in screening for breast cancers – very close to the 85% reported for mammography. In addition, the publication stated that while thermography does not capture structural changes the way mammograms do, thermography does capture functional changes that precede structural changes, which enables practitioners to detect cancer at earlier stages than mammography can detect. (13) One study listed in a scoping review found three women who had normal mammograms, but their cancer was caught earlier because of thermography. (12)

This scoping review stated, “Thermography’s diagnostic quality when screening for breast cancer has improved to a level where it can compete with the gold standard mammography, especially in view of the limited sensitivity of mammography in young women and those with dense breast tissue.” And the review concluded, “Thermography should be researched more intensively, especially in the area of mass screening and early diagnosis, as it combines the best prerequisites for this, such as portability, non-invasiveness, and automated evaluation options with low resource consumption at reasonable costs.” (12)

In addition, thermography is a good choice for women with breast implants, due to mammograms being unable to get a clear image and the risk of rupture. (14)

Informed Decision

Personally, I trust these early studies on thermography more than I trust the known risks of mammography. It is a decision each woman should make for herself after researching and interviewing several doctors who hold various opinions. A woman may still choose a mammogram or a combination of mammogram, ultrasound, and thermography, or she may be like me and use a combination that does not include mammography. Whatever decision is made, I believe each woman should know both sides so she can make an informed decision for herself.

Image Source: https://peaandthepodchiropractic.com/thermal-imaging-thermography-for-breast-cancer-screening/

Take Back Health