A physiological screening exam is indicated.Mammography has its "place" just as many different types of imaging can identify abnormalities in their own way. Each has a specific role.
Thermography - or infrared imaging - is not a replacement for any structural test as mammography, ultrasound or MRI -- but is a non-invasive way to monitor breast health changes as it relates to physiology and ideal for women of all ages and stages of life and health. A non-contact, non-invasive imaging test of blood flow - has been resisted by standard medicine. New studies prove Infrared imaging can show new blood vessel growth or neoangiogenesis - verified in a 2006 study where angiogenesis was induced with fibrin. Once accepted - it can aid in identifying those at greatest RISK for breast cancer.
Jan Crawford, RN
Rockford, IL

Sent by Jan Crawford, RN | 2:18 PM ET | 04-11-2007

Why doesn't anyone talk about thermography? This is a technology that has been demonstrated to be an effective screening tool, possibly more accurate and less invasive than mammography.

Sent by Kris Hjelle | 2:19 PM ET | 04-11-2007

When i watched Elizabeth Edwards discuss the return of her breast cancer, it occurred to me that somewhere I had read that having children at a later age, increases the risk for breast cancer. Am I correct about this and would she have been advised about this risk prior to having her last two children?

Sent by Edith Brown | 2:31 PM ET | 04-11-2007

NIH found AGE is the only consistent indicator of RISK. Thermography is also a stand alone marker for those at RISK (Elliot Head). As a serial exam - over time - abnormal thermal exams are consistent wtih those at greatest RISK for br ca.

Sent by Jan Crawford, RN | 2:39 PM ET | 04-11-2007

I wonder if the host, reporter and guest commentators fully realize that they're discussing an issue that is irrelevant to millions of women, simply because an ordinary mammography is beyond their means, let alone the vastly more expensive MRI. As an uninsured woman (self-employed, and therefore without the means to acquire health insurance), I can't always get mammograms as often as my doctor recommends, which is once a year (I'm 50 years old). I'm required to pay at the time of service, so I have to go when my budget allows, not when I should. When you discuss this topic, I feel that you're comparing the relative merits of diamond rings - an issue that is not part of my reality.

Sent by Christine | 2:44 PM ET | 04-11-2007

I wonder as I listen to the show how much of the screening logic (when, who, how often, after what age, what kind of screen in particular, etc.) is driven by the significantly higher cost of MRI vs. computer aided mammogram vs. digital mammogram. I know it's a touchy subject, but cost of scans is a factor for a lot of people, and MRIs have been brought up several times, but no one's mentioned cost yet. Is it the elephant in the room (a false dilemma, since cost is a part of any risk assessment, or should be) or is it completely irrelevant to the NIH/NCI research on breast cancer screening (which perhaps should be another entire show on how the finances of health business affect the decisions of healthCARE.

Sent by Ranjan Banerji | 2:52 PM ET | 04-11-2007

I had an excruciatingly painful mammogram 5 years ago when a lump the size of a twinkey appeared on top of my right breast. 4 months earlier it was the size of a nickle but it took 4 months to get screened. The mammogram did not even show the very raised tissue on top of the breast let alone anything wrong, even though everyone could see this lump beneath my tops, it was that large. I had it removed in an out patient method and the pathology report said it would have turned malignant had it not been removed. I will NEVER allow myself to have a mammogram again. They are unreliable and excruciatingly painful. There are better ways to examine a womans breast that thru that torture machine. No woman should have to go thru such a procedure when there are non-invasive methods in the medical realm.

Sent by Mrs. Nina Byers | 3:56 PM ET | 04-11-2007

What has happened to the correct information that was once a well known fact that when a woman gives birth breast feeding for no less than 1 year place a significantly high percentage roll in preventing breast cancer? Of course if said woman smokes, well... but since the vast majority of women that do breast feed for at least 1 year are health oriented and would not smoke, the act of breast feeding has been scientifically proven to greatly reduce the chances of getting breast cancer later in life. Why is the fact not being mentioned in the breast cancer discussion? (I had 7 children in 7 years and nursed thru 6 of the pregnancies and nursed each baby until they weaned themselves around the age of 3. They were all healthy babies, are now healthy adults and I am healthier for it at 52 years of age).

Sent by Mrs. James Byers | 4:06 PM ET | 04-11-2007

i believe that the most effective screening tool for breast cancer is thermal imaging. approximently 93% of breast cancers are preceded and accompanied by imflammation. themal imaging has the potential to identify precancerous conditions in the breasts before the those conditions develope into cancer, and often, long before any other screening technology. identifing precancerous conditions makes it possible to make changes in lifestyle or take other noninvasive measures to avoid developing cancer. it also dramatically increases the probability of diagnosing breast cancer in very early stages, and detecting cancers missed by conventional screening methods. infared imaging does not eliminate the need for screening using mamagrams,ultrasound and mri's to identify slow growing carcinomas that cannot be identified with infared. However, infared imaging used in cojuntion with solid mass screening technologies would almost completely eliminate the false negative findings of mamagrams and ultrasound, detect breast cancer at earlier stages and detect precancerous conditions, saving untold thousands of lives and reducing dependancy on harsh and invasive treatments.

Sent by david mulain | 4:10 PM ET | 04-11-2007

I am writing because I am concerned about the proposals to reduce mammography for women in their 40's. I was diagnosed with breast cancer almost 24 years ago when I was 35 - I had been in with symptoms discovered in self examination 9 months before but was not referred for a mammogram because I was so young and not regarded as at risk (no one in my family had ever had breast cancer). My tumor was growing very rapidly and was removed first in a lumpectomy, followed shortly by my first ever mammograph (because the clinical diagnosis of the lump I had found was a benign fibroid adnoma), then by a quadrantectomy and partial lympadectomy, and, a month later by bilateral mastectomies during which another site was discovered. I am very lucky that my surgeries followed by heavy radiation therapy has resulted in my having had a long survival free of the disease. BUT, I probably could have been spared the extensive surgeries and radiation had I had a mammogram when I was 34. This is an issue where the incidence may be low but the risk is high if a tumor is not discovered. Statistics only apply to populations, not individuals!!!

Sent by Lee Hall | 4:47 PM ET | 04-11-2007

I am responding to a mail sent by Mrs. Nina Byers. I, too, thought that mammograms were painful. I, with a high pain threshold, would be reduced to tears. Until I found a specialist that said it doesn't have to be that way. Indeed she was right and I have had yearly mammograms with no pain. Now I try to let all women know this. If you are being hurt, you need a new person/doctor.

Sent by Linda Cobb | 11:05 PM ET | 04-19-2007