MRI vs Mammo

Gramma44
Gramma44 Member Posts: 28
edited March 2014 in Breast Cancer #1
In Julie's posting below she asked about MRI's vs Mammograms so I thought maybe if I made it a subject we might get more responses.I'm curious about this also since I've started seeing articles on it. I found a prominent lump in my breast three years ago that the dr told me was nothing because it didn't show on my mammo. Four months later a new doctor sent me to a surgeon who, thank God, didn't like the way it felt, and one of the three tumors he removed was cancer. I had stage 1 invasive lobular and I like to think the radiation and chemo got rid of the cancer for good, but I do worry that this type of tumor doesn't show on mammos. I'd like to hear from as many of you as possible on this subject, particularly if you had invasive lobular.
JULIE - don't be upset with yourself for cancelling your appt - we all do that at some point - but do get to the doctor as fast as you can. If you have family history of bc you need to be checked out! I pray all will go well for you.

Sharyl

Comments

  • krisrey
    krisrey Member Posts: 194
    #2
    Hi Sharyl,
    I don't have invasive lobular but invasive ductal. My lump was not seen on the mammogram but stuck out so much you could feel it and practically see it. Like you, my surgeon wanted to take it out "just in case" even though the ultrasound didn't have the "typical" signs of cancer. Well I figured this surgeon saved my life.
    Additionally, my surgeon also insisted on an MRI due to other very small lumps felt in my other breast. I had my MRI and it came back negative.
    Here is my understanding of the MRI and mammogram:
    Recent articles have stressed not using MRI for a tool used like mammogram UNLESS YOU HAVE A FAMILY UHISTORY or VERY DENSE BREAST.. The MRI should not take the place of the mammogram because the mammogram will pick up different types of calcifications. I met with my rad/oncol yesterday for my 6 month appt and she said most likely I will be getting an MRI done annually now, but also still getting my mammograms every six months.
    I was a little unsettled when I got my last four years of records for my mammogram because I was not informed that I had extremely dense tissue and BECAUSE of the denseness they could not "see" anything. I was always lead to believe everything was fine and never imformed that because of the denseness they could not see. I think if I had been a little more informed as to the seriousness of extreme dense tissue, maybe I would have been a little more vigilent in doing self checks.
    Well I could go on and on about this..I hope a lot of other women respond to this MRI post.
    Thanks everybody..
    Kris
  • KarenKL
    KarenKL Member Posts: 42
    #3
    I did reply to Julie's posting as well. I did a self exam found a lump, went to Dr. she sent me for a mommo. they found nothing. Even feeling the lump themselves still couldn't show, the mammo. tech. however told me that mammo's. normally don't find anything in woman under 50. I will never understand that. An ultrasound only found it by rolling over the lump. So I had a biopsy done and I have DCIS. Now I have heard from many Dr.'s that a MRI will show it better than a mammogram. But now again, it's all about money. I would opt. just to have it biopsied either way.
    Karen
  • wildangel
    wildangel Member Posts: 81
    #4
    From what I heard this news is based on a long term study that was just done. And in it they said that MRI can pick up tumors where Mammo and sonograms can fail. Even in very dense breasts.
    I think we should fight to get one if a mammo is not conclusive but we know there is something there. Maybe as breast cancer survivors we won't have to fight so hard and they will offer them more easily.
    That is what I read about them if that helps at all!
    Angela
  • zackie
    zackie Member Posts: 1
    #5
    Hi All...in June '03 after a normal mammo my Dr. ordered a screening ultra-sound because of dense breast tissue (had one the previous year that was normal). This one found a 0.8 invasive ductal (5+ nodes) which was never seen on mammo. A bilateral screening MRI just before surgery found a dcis in the other breast. 2 lumpectomies, chemo and rads followed. The plan is now to have mammo and MRI every 6 months. MRIs do find a fair number of false positives, so it is not a good routine screening for the general population, but I think that anyone with dense breast tissue should insist on ultra sound screening, as well as mammo, routinely.
  • SusanAnne
    SusanAnne Member Posts: 245
    #6
    Hi everyone. I recently attended a lecture about all the forms of diagnostic scans etc. From what I learned, the mammo is very good at picking up problems areas, whereas the MRI can more acurately tell us what specifically that problem is. Therefore, if the mammo is inconclusive then an MRI is in order. This info came in very handy after my friend had her mammo and subsequent biopsy. The results were inconclusive and the level of concern about an area was 3 out of 5. Her surgeon wanted to wait and redo mammo in 6 mos. I told her to ask for an MRI. Surgeon agreed and the MRI showed that it was scar tissue from her lumpectomy. It saved her 6 mos. of worry! If the MRI had been done after the mammo, it would have saved her having to go thru the biopsy. I wish the lecture had been before her biopsy!
    Susan
  • seeknpeace
    seeknpeace Member Posts: 259
    #7
    krisrey said:

    Hi Sharyl,
    I don't have invasive lobular but invasive ductal. My lump was not seen on the mammogram but stuck out so much you could feel it and practically see it. Like you, my surgeon wanted to take it out "just in case" even though the ultrasound didn't have the "typical" signs of cancer. Well I figured this surgeon saved my life.
    Additionally, my surgeon also insisted on an MRI due to other very small lumps felt in my other breast. I had my MRI and it came back negative.
    Here is my understanding of the MRI and mammogram:
    Recent articles have stressed not using MRI for a tool used like mammogram UNLESS YOU HAVE A FAMILY UHISTORY or VERY DENSE BREAST.. The MRI should not take the place of the mammogram because the mammogram will pick up different types of calcifications. I met with my rad/oncol yesterday for my 6 month appt and she said most likely I will be getting an MRI done annually now, but also still getting my mammograms every six months.
    I was a little unsettled when I got my last four years of records for my mammogram because I was not informed that I had extremely dense tissue and BECAUSE of the denseness they could not "see" anything. I was always lead to believe everything was fine and never imformed that because of the denseness they could not see. I think if I had been a little more informed as to the seriousness of extreme dense tissue, maybe I would have been a little more vigilent in doing self checks.
    Well I could go on and on about this..I hope a lot of other women respond to this MRI post.
    Thanks everybody..
    Kris

    Me too. I got all my records and films all the way back to 86 and was disturbed with what they noted but never told me. I had very dense breast tissue and had calcifications the year before this one, where they finally told me and told me it was not cancer. They never even told me the year before. So, I advise ppl to always get their reports and records.
  • jdubious
    jdubious Member Posts: 113
    #8
    SusanAnne said:

    Hi everyone. I recently attended a lecture about all the forms of diagnostic scans etc. From what I learned, the mammo is very good at picking up problems areas, whereas the MRI can more acurately tell us what specifically that problem is. Therefore, if the mammo is inconclusive then an MRI is in order. This info came in very handy after my friend had her mammo and subsequent biopsy. The results were inconclusive and the level of concern about an area was 3 out of 5. Her surgeon wanted to wait and redo mammo in 6 mos. I told her to ask for an MRI. Surgeon agreed and the MRI showed that it was scar tissue from her lumpectomy. It saved her 6 mos. of worry! If the MRI had been done after the mammo, it would have saved her having to go thru the biopsy. I wish the lecture had been before her biopsy!
    Susan

    Hi,
    I found a lump in my left breast that wasn't showing up on my annual mammograms. Family doctor thought it was because I have fiberous breasts - just a change in fiber caused the lump. Additional mammo and ultra-sound were still inconclusive, so I had a biopsy that determined the lump was lobular cancer. Per my surgeon, lobular doesn't show up well in mammo or ultra-sound.
    Next step was a CT scan and MRI, which showed additional areas of concern - nodes and right breast. After additional biopsies, some nodes were involved, but the "areas" on my right breast were just changes in fiber. The MRI and additional biopsies went a long way to help me with fear, plus MRI will now be standard for me, rather than just mammo. I guess if you have fiberous breasts, you need to be extra vigilant - if I had known this a couple of years ago, I might have opted to get a "baseline" MRI at 40.
    j.
  • JulieC
    JulieC Member Posts: 37
    #9
    jdubious said:

    Hi,
    I found a lump in my left breast that wasn't showing up on my annual mammograms. Family doctor thought it was because I have fiberous breasts - just a change in fiber caused the lump. Additional mammo and ultra-sound were still inconclusive, so I had a biopsy that determined the lump was lobular cancer. Per my surgeon, lobular doesn't show up well in mammo or ultra-sound.
    Next step was a CT scan and MRI, which showed additional areas of concern - nodes and right breast. After additional biopsies, some nodes were involved, but the "areas" on my right breast were just changes in fiber. The MRI and additional biopsies went a long way to help me with fear, plus MRI will now be standard for me, rather than just mammo. I guess if you have fiberous breasts, you need to be extra vigilant - if I had known this a couple of years ago, I might have opted to get a "baseline" MRI at 40.
    j.

    well after reading all this I definately will talk to my doc about getting an mri. I not only have a mother, grandmother & 3 aunts w/breast cancer. but I have extremely dense breasts for a 46 yr. old. I think they were having difficulty reading the mamogram because they sent me for a sonogram...but that seemed inconclusive as well. I didnt get the feeling that they were sure about anything and were going on a gut instinct or something like that...that is why they said to wait & see. so now I'm wondering why they wouldnt send me for an MRI...?...I am really learning so much from all of you! what does it mean if the doc says he sees calcifications? he made it sound like no big deal...is it? Julie
  • seeknpeace
    seeknpeace Member Posts: 259
    #10
    JulieC said:

    well after reading all this I definately will talk to my doc about getting an mri. I not only have a mother, grandmother & 3 aunts w/breast cancer. but I have extremely dense breasts for a 46 yr. old. I think they were having difficulty reading the mamogram because they sent me for a sonogram...but that seemed inconclusive as well. I didnt get the feeling that they were sure about anything and were going on a gut instinct or something like that...that is why they said to wait & see. so now I'm wondering why they wouldnt send me for an MRI...?...I am really learning so much from all of you! what does it mean if the doc says he sees calcifications? he made it sound like no big deal...is it? Julie

    well, from what I understand, calcifications, which have a small sand like appearance on the mammo, are usually benign. However, I was called in for a repeat when calcifications showed up in my mammo 12-31-03. They redid the mammo with a different machine which gave them a closer look. As I also understand, usually cancerous calcifications are jagged and grouped close together while the benign form is space apart and well rounded. Suffice it to say that my calcifications had the benign appearance, but, because of family history, much like yours, I insisted on a biopsy, which even my surgeon felt could be skipped. He was convinced as well that the calcifications were benign.

    I had a core needle biopsy on 1-14, and not only were my calcifications malignant, but, I had high nuclear grade 3, comedo subtype with extensive necrosis..ie: very aggressive cancer. While I was really lucky that it was confined to the ducts, (DCIS), the fact that there was so much necrosis, or dead cells, was an indicator that my cancer was ready to bust out. It was growing so fast that it could not get the blood supply needed so the cells were dying, but, they will break out when that happens. The breast clinic wanted me to wait 6 mos. to have a look again, and I struggle with how that may have turned out had I not been insistant.

    So, with your history, I personally would ask for a biopsy. I don't want to scare you but, I thank God that my gut instincts were as they were. I have had a bilater mastectomy with a tram flap.

    Good luck and please follow up with them.

    Jan
  • hounddog
    hounddog Member Posts: 115
    #11
    I think Mammograms and MRIs are both good because they both catch cancer .They did an ultrasound on my left breast last year and also a Mammogram which they both showed something was wrong. Last year I had a needle localization biopsy they had to put needles in to show the surgeon where the lumps were before I went in to surgery and I asked if my Mom could be in the Mammogram room with me since she is a nurse and they said sure .That day that I had my biopsy I had a migraine headache to begin with and they were remodleing the ER using jack hammers which did not help a headache and I started getting sick at my stomach and when they took me in to surgery and even before I came out of anestesia My husband ,his Mom and Dad knew it was cancer before I did. I told Mom if it was any thing that I wanted something done so I knew what I was up against. So. MRI's Mammograms and ultrasounds are all good.
    Marilyn

Discussion Boards