I’m aware that mammogram machines are torture devices designed by pancake enthusiasts, but I don’t know if I ever thought about how it works for women with smaller breasts, and where that threshold is. Are mammograms only effective for B-cups and bigger (for example)? Are smaller breasts limited to manual exam and/or sonogram imaging?
Also, are there any correlations between tumor characteristics and breast size? i.e. are lumps in smaller breasts more dense than those in larger breasts? Are there different things to consider when doing a self exam if you have large vs. small breasts (will issues present differently based on breast size)?
Finally, guys, breast cancer isn’t just for women. Get yourself a bit of knowledge about it in dudes so you know what to keep an eye out for.
I’ve wondered about that myself, actually, as a card carrying member of the itty bitty titty committee.
I can’t speak for mammography specifically, as I have absolutely zero intention of ever getting one (I take personal issue with how sensitive they are these days, as they frequently find tumors that never would have actually caused a problem because they are very slow-growing, leading to over-treatment) but for self-exams, do be aware that certain breasts can have more or less cystic tissue, which can change the feel of the breast. It’s not related to size, afaik, just your own composition, tho larger breasts have a lot more tissue to spread cysts and tumors through, so they might be more or less obvious.
Thus, self exams (for all Humans) are most valuable when you do them regularly, so you know what your own tissue normally feels like, and you can pick out new lumps and monitor them.
I have a lot of cystic tissue, so my breasts are normally a bit on the firm and lumpy side. Nothing to worry about, but if I didn’t know that was normal for me, I might think it was cancerous.
Is it your conclusion that that detriments of possible over-treatment on you personally are more dangerous than possible continued growth of an unchecked tumor?
If I end up with cancer that grows so fast that a mammogram every few years is the only way to catch it in time, then I frankly wouldn’t have great odds anyway.
But to more directly answer your question, I’m actually pretty unlikely to be willing to go through chemo and radiation treatments regardless if it’s a real threat to my life or not. If it can be excised via surgery, maybe, or if some of the new treatments (like the mRNA vax or the preventative vax) would handle it with minimal side effects, I would do that, but otherwise, nope. But surgery is pretty invasive so yes, I do think over-treatment for me specifically would be more harmful than just waiting to see if it gets worse, and then still doing the surgery.
I had parents in the medical field, and most of my deceased family has been taken down by cancers, so I know what I’m getting myself into, treated or not. My mom didn’t even bother with treatment (hospice only), because she spent enough time in oncology and hospice to know the outcomes. I took care of her throughout, and we had a lot of conversations about treatment and the reasoning behind not going that route, but ultimately people who work with cancer patients tend not to seek treatment themselves for a reason. And I tend to agree with their logic, given the current treatment options.
I’ve had gene screening for all known cancer genes and came up clean (tho I still get updates on my unknown mutations every few years). I was and still am fully prepared for a double mastectomy or whatever other surgical interventions if it ever becomes prudent. I do regular bloodwork, regular professional exams, plus I do fairly frequent self-screens (full body), so I’m not doing nothing, I’m just not doing mammograms.
To each their own, and by no means do I think nobody should be screened or go through treatment, it’s just not something I’m personally interested in doing.
They give you a card?
Yep, inherited membership from my mother :)
Society: Shake what your Momma gave ya!
You: *Waggles card