Rank: Administration
Groups: Administration
Joined: 4/15/2008
Posts: 11
Points: -1,119
|
> From: dailyhealth@electricmessage.co.uk
> To:
> Subject: Mammography: How women are becoming victims of technology
> Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 07:00:00 +0200
>
> Agora Lifestyle Limited's Health Sciences Institute e-Alert
>
>
>
>
> 7 May 2008
>
>
> Dear Reader,
>
> Mammography technology has entered the digital age.
>
> Unfortunately, mammography technology managed to enter the digital
> age by taking a big step backward.
>
> ********************************
> Don't train on me
> ********************************
>
> A recent US New York Times newspaper article focused on a typical
> problem for doctors who make the transition from mammography that
> produces images on film to mammography that produces digital images.
>
> As you might expect, the new images are much clearer, which helps
> doctors spot problems. But a thorough reading of a mammogram image
> requires comparison to a patient's previous mammograms. So when a
> doctor compares a sharp digital image to a fuzzy film image, he may
> spot irregularities that are actually just differences in the images
> rather than a change in the breast.
>
> Meanwhile, during this transition, it's common for women to be called
> back for follow up mammograms that turn out to be unnecessary. And in
> some cases, unnecessary ultrasound examinations and even biopsies
> have been ordered.
>
> Obviously this causes women considerable undue anxiety.
>
> One radiologist told the New York Times that he just explains to a
> patient that she is a "victim of technology." He says: "Your last one
> was film; this one was digital. They look different, and we just
> didn't know that."
>
> Ah. You just didn't know that. Then why didn't you get some TRAINING
> before you scared the daylights out of me?
>
> Doesn't it seem like there's a link missing here? Why are these
> doctors getting trained on the job? Shouldn't they attend a seminar
> to get an idea of the different things they'll be seeing in digital
> images that they wouldn't see on film?
>
> Imagine going to a dentist who says, "I'm not quite used to this new
> drill yet, so bear with me while I get the hang of it." I don't think
> so! When you get the hang of it, call me and I'll make another
> appointment.
>
> ********************************
> Same old same old
> ********************************
>
> Okay, so now we know: There's a period of transition and we shouldn't
> be shocked when a radiologist scares us half to death while he gets
> accustomed to the digital age.
>
> Meanwhile, the REAL problem here is that this new technology is
> mostly about the image, not the technique. In other words, we women
> are still exposed to high levels of radiation (although slightly less
> than with a film mammogram), and our breasts are still uncomfortably
> compressed between two plates (although the compression time is
> slightly reduced).
>
> The problem here, as I've noted in previous e-Alerts, is the
> "compression contradiction." Medical students are taught to examine
> breasts gently in order to keep possible cancer from spreading. Then
> those same gently examined breasts are painfully flattened and x-
> rayed.
>
> In those e-Alerts in which I've addressed this problem I've also told
> you about alternative breast-imaging techniques that don't use
> radiation and offer the huge advantage of no compression. So there's
> less pain and less chance of prompting cancer spread. And while I had
> high hopes that the mainstream was starting to move toward these
> alternative techniques, now we find out that radiologists are making
> the transition to an improved image, but still dragging along a
> ridiculously outdated technology.
>
> And because they're upgrading to digital mammography, spending
> hundreds of thousands of pounds on new equipment, they'll be even
> less inclined to entertain the concept of using techniques that
> require no radiation or compression.
>
> Their step up in technology is a step back for women.
>
>> *******************************
> ...and another thing
> *******************************
>
> Eating five tomatoes a day "can keep you safe in the sun" by helping
> to protect against sunburn and premature ageing, research suggests.
> Experts at Manchester and Newcastle universities found that the fruit
> improved the skin's ability to protect itself against ultraviolet
> light.
>
> Until tomorrow,
>
>
> Rachael
> UK Editor
>
>>
> Sources:
> "In Shift to Digital, More Repeat Mammograms" Denise Grady, The New
> York Times, 4/10/08, nytimes.com
>
> ***********************************
|
Rank: Newbie
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/9/2008
Posts: 1
Points: 3
Location: Milton Keynes
|
Rachael,
just one hour before I read this I had had my breasts flattened and pummelled at a breast-screening. You must have known. It struck me even then what an archaic way of doing things it was. But then, it's only women isn't it!
Janet
|
Rank: Newbie
Groups: Member
Joined: 8/20/2008
Posts: 6
Points: 18
Location: East Yorkshire
|
Janet wrote:Rachael,
just one hour before I read this I had had my breasts flattened and pummelled at a breast-screening. You must have known. It struck me even then what an archaic way of doing things it was. But then, it's only women isn't it!
Janet There is a practice in Cambridge where I have my Thermogram done rather than the Mammogram. Read up about the Thermograms and find out that the accuracy of those is supposedly 85% to only 45% in mammograms!Ingrid
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: Administration
Joined: 4/15/2008
Posts: 11
Points: -1,119
|
Dear Janet,
We've had such a large response from our readers regarding mammograms that we've decided to look further in to the topic. Keep a look out as we are running an e-alert on Thermography as an alternative to mammograms and it will appear this week.
All of the best.
|