A new mammography innovation is touted as a lifesaver. It’s not. It’s exceedingly dangerous in two ways.

Two steps back

Anything new and shiny and colorful draws our attention. But if you really want to get our blood pumping, give us 3-D.

Our attention rushes to the eye candy of three dimensional images like a moth to a flame… Giant screen Imax movies in 3-D. Television in 3-D. Even 3-D holograms — “live” onstage. It’s hard to resist.

But if anyone tries to sell you on the wondrous advancement of 3-D mammography, draw the line right there. Just say, “Never! No way.”

It’s a one-dimensional danger.

Inside view

Unlike conventional mammography, the new 3-D mammography (we’ll call it 3-DM) can spot smaller tumors in dense breasts. And almost half of all women have dense breast tissue.

But in spite of this improvement, 3-DM is actually WORSE than conventional mammograms.

Two reasons — compression and radiation.

Compression is one of the huge drawbacks of mammography. It’s painful, of course, and that’s bad enough. But compression can actually prompt a tumor to become more active.

Conventional mammography requires about 20 seconds of breast compression. That doesn’t sound too bad. But when it’s your breast between the plates, that’s a VERY long 20 seconds.

Here’s the kicker… 3-DM more than DOUBLES the compression time to nearly 50 seconds. More painful? Absolutely! But even worse, the risk of stimulating tumor activity also increases.

The radiation problem is just as dangerous. And it goes way beyond mammography. That’s because radiation exposure is cumulative. Every x-ray, cat scan, and mammogram adds to your total lifetime dose. As that total grows, cancer risk grows.

Now here’s the second kicker… 3-DM delivers TWICE as much radiation as conventional mammography.

It’s insane! This “advanced” screening actually boosts cancer risk in two ways!

Women, please warn your friends, mothers, daughters, sisters, and aunts about these dangers. And men, this tip is for you too. Believe me, you’ll score big points for sharing this one.

Sources:
“Is a 3-D Mammogram Better at Avoiding False Positives?” Laura Johannes, The Wall St. Journal, 10/1/12, online, wsj.com