Lead researcher Dr David Goldgar (The Journal of Clinical Oncology study.. led by the International Agency for Research on Cancer in France) said: "This is one of the first studies to demonstrate that women genetically predisposed to breast cancer may be more susceptible to low-dose ionizing radiation than other women.
Women who were exposed to X-rays before age 20 had a 2.5-fold increased risk of developing the disease before age 40, compared with women who had never been exposed..
...the researchers admitted that it was possible that women who had gone on to develop breast cancer might be more likely to remember having had an X-ray than those who remained free from the disease.
They also failed to collect data on the specific dose and timing of radiation that was received.
~As seen on local tv news, with few of the details mentioned above . Fyi: UKs chest-x-rays = USAs mammograms.
When a diagnostic test causes a disease is that a "side-effect"? How about when the testing procedure causes the very disease it's supposed to be diagnosing?
Before having any mammograms (i.e. chest X-rays) young women should first be tested for the BRCA1 and 2 gene mutations? There're so many mammogram machines around; what are the chances that "Breast-Cancer Awareness Charities" will soon be launching all-out ad-campaigns to re-educate mothers and daughters on how best to be tested?
How expensive, how accurate, are the tests for the BRCA1 and 2 gene mutations?
Would widely publized news about mammogram risks cause more breast cancer deaths than simply continuing mammograms for everyone?
Do you think medical insurance companies have already figured out the cost-risk analysis of present-day use of mammograms versus BRCA1 and 2 gene testing first for everyone followed by mammograms only for those who can tolerate them?
Did an MRI manufacturer sponser this study?
Posted by Stubbornson at June 27, 2006 09:26 AM