Everything you need to know about breast self examination, the complete online breast exam guide.http://www.breast-exam.com

How did those women find out they had breast cancer?  That statistic seems crude when you compare it to the reality that some people die of cancer regardless of the treatment, time of detection or method of detection.  Many good women have died of cancer even though they had mammograms not because of the mammograms but because of the cancer.

No one is saying that any of these methods of detection are infallible but they work to help some people.  The key is to take your breast health seriously and explore multiple avenues of detection.

ishoping - I know that sounds so logical.  Unfortunately, cancer doesn't play fair like that.  Although we wish it were so, the statistics do not  support the notion that earlier detection makes much of a difference.  The sad fact is that there is so much cash invested in mammography equipment (and frequently it is doctors who own the facilities), that there is a massive disincentive for doctors to honestly discuss the shortcomings of routine screening mammograms for all women.  If we are to rely on anecdotes to make our medical decisions, here's one: every woman I know who died of breast cancer was religious about her mammograms.  Didn't help.

"So whether you find the tumor today or on July 15, 2014, makes no difference."

It makes a huge difference because the size of the tumor will change in that seven years and the tumor will have a chance to move from, say, DCIS to IDC, as well as into the lymph or blood systems.  Ignoring a cancer tumor is never a good thing.  Early detection saves lives -- just look at the difference in survival rates between Stage 1 and Stages 2 or 3.   The slow rate at which SOME (by far not all) breast tumors grow only gives women who are lucky enough to have them detected early a bit more time to make treatment decisions.  

emackenzie:  the "some is better than none" analysis of universal screening mammograms among asymtomatic women is, unfortunately, good PR but bad science.  The "some" is so small, and the damage that is done to women by "catching" massive numbers of benign abnomalities (and removing or biopsying them) is not "better" than anything.  We need to start telling the truth about mammograms.  The pink ribbon political correctness, at the cost of real science, does nobody any favors.

I think one of the things that keeps getting forgotten in the conversations against BSE is that they are important in keeping women in touch with their breasts.  Many of the symptoms that arise from inflammatory breast cancer are noticed by touch and feel (such as the puckered skin or sensistive nipple) so discrediting the BSE seems a little unreasonable.  Instead of debunking BSE I think the focus should be on increasing breast health awareness in all its capacities. Women should be taught to look for symptoms, to get regular mammograms (because they do catch cancer- maybe not all but some is better than none) and ways of managing their lifestyles to reduce risk.  Cancer detection is not a straight line and neither are the awareness tools.

Another thank you!  Now, will you please do a column that explores the myth of mammograms?  The same Cochrane group has already pronounced wide-spread "screening" mammograms of asymptomatic women as virtually worthless.  They do NOT save lives, all the shrieking of the pink-ribbon bullies notwithstanding.  

Thank you! I think the only proven cancer screening exam is colonoscopy after age 50.