788 users online (130 members and 658 guests)  


Websleuths News


Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Not Of This World
    Posts
    21,642

    Thumbs up FDA approves first 3-D mammography device

    WASHINGTON – The Food and Drug Administration said Friday it has approved the first mammography device that generates 3-D images of the breast, potentially helping doctors spot more cancerous tumors.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110211/...phy_device_fda


    Follow me on the Twitter! @EricDiesel1972

    Deuteronomy 18:10-12 (KJV)

    10 There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, 11 or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. 12 For all who do these things are an abomination to the Lord. (KJV)

    Follow me at my Biblical Blog: http://scripture-demystified.blogspot.com

    Baruch ha Shem Adonai.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Dana Point,CA
    Posts
    52,752
    I wonder if necessary, do they offer a 3-DDD mammogram?

    hehe.

    Seriously, I think this is great. I have a GF with the marker and she keeps going back and forth trying to decide if she should be proactive and have her breasts removed before she gets cancer. I wonder if something like this could buy her some time by getting her a more accurate mammo every 6 mos?

  3. #3
    Kimberlyd125's Avatar
    Kimberlyd125 is offline Softball is for everyone. Fast pitch is for athletes.
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    16,170

    Great news. Early detection is the key. Looks like this will help that out.
    Glove Findin'
    Uniform Washin'
    Gatorade Gettin'
    Picture Takin'
    Always Cheerin'

    Softball Mom

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Not Of This World
    Posts
    21,642
    Quote Originally Posted by JBean View Post
    I wonder if necessary, do they offer a 3-DDD mammogram?

    hehe.
    If they do, I wanna administer them!


    Follow me on the Twitter! @EricDiesel1972

    Deuteronomy 18:10-12 (KJV)

    10 There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, 11 or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. 12 For all who do these things are an abomination to the Lord. (KJV)

    Follow me at my Biblical Blog: http://scripture-demystified.blogspot.com

    Baruch ha Shem Adonai.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Cajun Country, Louisiana
    Posts
    7,598

    Bad Bad Dark Knight!!!

    You are too funny, my friend! OF COURSE you'll volunteer, ALL MEN would stand in line, wouldn't they????

    I hate, hate, hate being a nay-sayer, but the article points out that there is only a 7% increase in the discovery of tumors using this technology---but 100% of the patients are hit with TWICE the radiation!

    Since radiation is a cause of some cancers, I'm not convinced that this new detection device is more helpful than it is harmful......

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    9,812
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Knight View Post
    If they do, I wanna administer them!
    Just so ya know DK, in my experience, the standard mammogram hurts like a MOFO! I have held a very dim view of every technician that has administered mine over the years.

    Now, the anesthesiologists....LOVE, LOVE, LOVE them! They should be required for every mammo, IMO. And they should be Chippendale dudes on the side - just for good measure!

    IDK why they can't come up with a better, less painful way to detect breast cancer early on!!!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,299
    I'm with you Kgeaux. Doctors themselves are coming out against full-body scans, saying they detect things that would never have become a problem, but, once detected, must be treated for liability's sake. I think all the ever-more-sensitive diagnostic tools like this fall somewhere on that same continuum. They may turn up more cancers, but will that translate to fewer deaths, or just more people treated?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Cajun Country, Louisiana
    Posts
    7,598
    Quote Originally Posted by Fairy1 View Post
    Just so ya know DK, in my experience, the standard mammogram hurts like a MOFO! I have held a very dim view of every technician that has administered mine over the years.

    Now, the anesthesiologists....LOVE, LOVE, LOVE them! They should be required for every mammo, IMO. And they should be Chippendale dudes on the side - just for good measure!

    IDK why they can't come up with a better, less painful way to detect breast cancer early on!!!

    You know what is interesting? If you have a mammogram---which I agree can be quite painful---and a problem is detected, you are called in for an ULTRA SOUND. The relatively painless ultrasound will then determine if the suspicious area is truly a tumor or not. The ultrasound test is considered to be definitive in both picking up problems and ruling out problems.

    Since learning this, my question has been, WHY don't we start off with the ultrasound? I believe a lot more women would be tested regularly if they could skip the pain! And how wonderful to know something is NOT a problem right away, instead of living in fear until you can get to the ultrasound! Plus you get to skip radiating part of your body!

    I've asked the mammogram techs this question, and they cite expense as the reason, but I don't buy that. It has to be more expensive to maintain TWO sets of equipment, plus double test every woman whose mammogram shows a problem area.

    I meant to ask my gynecologist but I cracked a joke early in the exam and we were laughing so much that the question about mammograms just flew right out of my mind!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,725
    Quote Originally Posted by kgeaux View Post
    I hate, hate, hate being a nay-sayer, but the article points out that there is only a 7% increase in the discovery of tumors using this technology---but 100% of the patients are hit with TWICE the radiation!
    Since radiation is a cause of some cancers, I'm not convinced that this new detection device is more helpful than it is harmful......
    I couldn't agree more kgeaux! How many tumors are being caused by all this irradiating of breast tissue I wonder. I have had one mamo and I'm not having another unless it is proven I have a problem that needs that irradiation. Even then I think I will ask for the ultrasound instead.....
    My posts and their content are MY OPINION unless I have provided a link
    and are not to be copied and pasted to other sites or pages without my permission.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    In the cooooold!
    Posts
    4,633
    Quote Originally Posted by Fairy1 View Post
    Just so ya know DK, in my experience, the standard mammogram hurts like a MOFO! I have held a very dim view of every technician that has administered mine over the years.

    Now, the anesthesiologists....LOVE, LOVE, LOVE them! They should be required for every mammo, IMO. And they should be Chippendale dudes on the side - just for good measure!

    IDK why they can't come up with a better, less painful way to detect breast cancer early on!!!
    That just cracked me up. I can just have seen my daddy as a Chippendale dude!

    Beautiful Rox.
    Sept. 18, 1997 - May 26 2012
    Rest peacefully my love I'll forever miss you.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    9,812
    Quote Originally Posted by drip~drop View Post
    That just cracked me up. I can just have seen my daddy as a Chippendale dude!
    I didn't mean all anesthesiologists should become Chippendale dancers, but I don't see why Chippendale dancers couldn't become anesthesiologists! It would certainly be a great distraction when you're getting a mammo!

    On a much more serious note....my best friend died of breast cancer at the age of 37, and my mother-in-law at the age of 52. I'm a huge advocate of mammograms and early detection. That said, I do believe more women would have testing done if it wasn't so painful and if the readings were more accurate. I've had 2 scares following mammograms. First time they followed up with an ultrasound; second time, another mammogram. With the ultrasound, I thought, "Jeez, why don't they just do this in first place?!?" Second time, I really had to build up my courage to get another mammo.

    Just sayin - one of my best friends absolutely refuses to have a mammogram, and she is in her 50's. She will not do it.



Similar Threads

  1. Belgium approves child euthanasia
    By Linda7NJ in forum Up to the Minute
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 02-21-2014, 02:13 AM
  2. Argentina Approves Gay Marriage
    By Chiquita71 in forum Up to the Minute
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-15-2010, 01:05 PM
  3. Tampa, Too, Approves Sex Offender Zones
    By Beyond Belief in forum Up to the Minute
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-22-2007, 11:36 PM
  4. FDA Approves Inhalable Version of Insulin
    By Dark Knight in forum Up to the Minute
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-28-2006, 09:15 PM
  5. Transexuals to compete in Olympics ~ IOC approves
    By Casshew in forum Bizarre and Off-Beat News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-19-2004, 09:00 AM