Page 5 | Aibu to say don’t be scared of a mammogram?

alpenguin · 2025-10-21T19:01:51+00:00

I was dreading it, I’d heard all these horror stories and it was absolutely nothing. the pressure on the breast was way less than me leaning on it cos my boobs sag on the bed. The radiographer said so many women don’t turn up for their mammograms because they’ve heard the horror stories. I get sore breasts due to hormones and honestly the mammogram wasn’t a patch on that monthly ouch. The worst bit was my lummoxy body trying to get into position but Evan that wasn’t as bad as a beginners yoga class. Please don’t be scared of a mammogram - it’s honestly nothing.

Mikart · 22/10/2025 05:27

My mammograms have been fine and infinitely preferable to some of my early smear tests. I had my first smear at NINE.... back in the 60s and it totally scarred me.
I think the nurse/ radiographer makes a huge difference to the experience.

SereneLime · 22/10/2025 05:53

Crwysmam · 22/10/2025 00:19

The modern digital mammogram delivers a radiation dose of around 0.4 mSV. Our environmental background dose is between 5-10 mSV. The background dose increases significantly the more time you spend in the sun and the more time you use air flight. It’s always assumed that people who work with radiation are most at risk but they are monitored and well protected. The occupation that receives the highest radiation are flight crew because they frequently enter areas where the natural radiation levels are much higher and there is little protection in an aircraft. Lead lining an aircraft would mean they couldn’t take off. The annual dose they receive is still lower than the maximum safe dose.

The old style non-digital xray machines delivered a dose of around 2.5mSv so still within the safe limit which is set at 50mSv per year.

PET/CT scans used to detect cancers in the body result in a dose of around 15mSv and are used to screen for secondary breast cancer. Using them as a primary screening method significantly increase the dose of radiation but still within the safe annual dose.

As someone who carries out radiological examinations I am sticking to mammograms. I have to do an IRMER course annually ( HSE for radiography/radiology) and so risk evaluation is continually refined and updated. Radiological screening is the safest it’s ever been with digital imaging. Unfortunately breast cancer incidence is still increasing although related deaths are decreasing with the effective screening service in the UK.

The increase in breast cancer is probably down to women living longer and maybe the massive decrease in breast feeding practice over the last 50yrs. It doesn’t guarantee protection, but it may help some women avoid it. Genetic forms make up a very small percentage and women with the BRCA genes are now being offered aromatase inhibitors to prevent breast cancer occurring with growing success. Rather than facing a double mastectomy that doesn’t guarantee that the disease doesn’t develop.

When anyone asks about my choices I aim not to scare them but to present the information so they can make their own minds up. Having a mammogram exposes you to no more radiation than a day in the sun on the beach. Finding it early gives you the best possible chance of living the life you would have lived if you didn’t develop cancer.

Apart from the genetic types, breast cancer is basically down to bad luck. One single cell producing a mistake when it divides that predisposes to rapid division and tumour formation, combined with your immune system not picking up the rogue cell and destroying it.

Cancer cells are devious, evil entities that hide in plain site having found a way to avoid the detection by our defence mechanisms. Fortunately there is an ever increasing arsenal of drugs and procedures that are being employed to eliminate them. And even better a gene identifying technology that allows bespoke treatment and can calculate outcomes.

Thanks for this information, it’s very helpful for people who are worried about the radiation dose. I don’t particularly like mammograms because my scar tissue is still painful after many years, but I don’t dread them.

Liondoesntsleepatnight · 22/10/2025 07:23

Small boobs here, v painful but I just take paracetamol and ibuprofen before, it’s all over very quickly

Justgorgeous · 22/10/2025 07:30

Zov · 21/10/2025 21:01

That's very nice for you that you had an easy and pain-free time with your mammogram @alpenguin Previous threads on Mumsnet (and other forums) tell a different story. It's very painful and traumatic for some women.

I am in my late 50s, and there is ZERO cancer in my family (including no breast cancer.)

I will never have a mammogram until they find a different way of doing it, that doesn't involve squashing your breasts FLAT between 2 big metal plates.

I will never EVER be talked into having one.

.

Edited

Exactly like my friend, who is now having chemo, after a mammogram showed a lump. Stop convincing yourself you are indestructible.

TeaRoseTallulah · 22/10/2025 07:42

nomas · 22/10/2025 00:45

Not due mammograms yet. Do they have to adjust you or can you adjust yourself?

You stand there near the machine and don't do anything ,they move your breast into the correct position and might tell you turn slightly.

IHateWasps · 22/10/2025 07:55

fisherhatesgravel72 · 21/10/2025 22:44

I had mine last month after rescheduling many times after reading the scaremongering on here. Couldn’t believe I’d been so stupid afterwards. Yes they were squashed but it certainly wasn’t excruciating. I told the woman doing it and said it was irresponsible to scare women and potentially put their lives at risk. She also laughed and said some women claim to have a low pain threshold but really they just enjoy having something to complain about!

What an absolutely disgusting attitude. Healthcare providers like her will do far more to put women off mammograms than any number of threads on MN. She shouldn’t be in her role if she is so ignorant and so dismissive of women’s pain and feelings.

Almostwelsh · 22/10/2025 08:53

Crwysmam · 22/10/2025 00:40

Almostwelsh But in a cancer that is actually quite common, 1 in 7 will be diagnosed at some point in their lifetime it is significant because it equates to an actual person. Statistics are great and on the whole reassuring until you become that 1 person in 7.

A patient of mine missed her first mammogram at 53 because of the screening being put on hold during the pandemic. She died 6mnth after eventually being diagnosed with stage 4. She had no breast lump but had found the lymph node spread and was having bone pain. Her GP was not keen to see her face to face and she was deemed low risk due to her age and the lack of breast lump.

There are so many cases of women assuming that the statistics are in some way protecting them. The reality is that many are unaware of their tumour until it has spread outside the breast tissue. Mine was nearly 4cm in size when I noticed a slightly firm area while showering. I knew exactly what it was but was having a mammogram later that month so it was found relatively early for the type and grade and it had not spread. But I know plenty of women whose tumours were just a few mm but had already spread to remote sites before detection. They would have been the ones to benefit from screening.

I’ve learnt so much about the diversity of this disease after becoming a member of the club. At some levels it has been estimated that there are over 10000 variations in the way breast cancer can present. No two cases are identical but with the ongoing research it is becoming one of the success stories in cancer treatment. Although not for everyone. Early detection will give you the best outcomes.

Edited

The 1 in 7 figure doesn't mean 1 in 7 are diagnosed by screening though. Lots of diagnosis come from the woman herself finding a lump or other breast issue and going to her doctor.

I am aware of the prevalence of breast cancer, having had at least 5 friends with a diagnosis and at least one death. None of those were diagnosed by screening, as they were all under 50 at diagnosis.

isitmyturn · 22/10/2025 11:47

Crwysmam · 21/10/2025 23:14

The pain of a mammogram is minimal compared to the physical and emotional pain of going through breast cancer diagnosis and treatment.

The theory behind regular screening is that they build up a series of mammograms that allows accurate diagnosis of any changes.

After my DSis was diagnosed at 34 I was referred to our family clinic which I attended annually from 38 to 50 then was transferred to the regular screening system. I was diagnosed at 57. They had over 15yrs of regular mammograms to follow the process of my boobs.

Unfortunately, mine made an appearance in a four year period over the pandemic. I should have had a mammogram at 56 but the screening programme was put on hold in 2020. Fortunately is was still localised and treatable with just surgery and radiotherapy. I know a couple of women who weren’t so fortunate and one died fairly soon after diagnosis, delayed by pandemic.

Screening and mammograms don’t pick up all breast cancer types but over 30% of all breast cancer diagnosis results from our current scheme.

With between 1 in 6 and 1 in 7 women facing breast cancer at some point in their life, regular screening in the age group, 50-70, the age group where most breast cancers are found, is a necessary evil. And with a survival rate of over 90% of cases of 5years over all breast cancer cases the sooner you are diagnosed the better your chances.

It’s no longer the killer disease it was, even stage 4 cases are now surviving over 10yrs with modern treatment.

I won’t lie, I dread my yearly mammogram post treatment, not because it’s painful, it really isn’t. But because it is triggering. I had my mammogram last week and the anxiety of the wait is kicking in. Having been through the system, positive findings are usually dealt with rapidly. I received my recall letter 5 days after my screening mammogram in 2021.

Normal findings can take weeks to report so I’m now in the watching the doormat mode waiting for a letter which if arrives this week will indicate bad news. But because it’s only 12 months since my last clear mammogram is actually less scary. However, it’s the rest of the body I constantly worry about. The hormone blockers cause pretty miserable muscle and joint pain which you constantly question since they are not dissimilar to the bone pains of secondary lesions.

I’ve managed to lose weight this year, sheer blood sweat and tears method. As soon as I mention it I get the full cross examination from the healthcare professionals because unexpected weight loss is a red flag. I have deliberately plateaued my weight to be sure it’s the starvation regime and not the ghost of my tumour popping up uninvited in my bones or liver.

Edited

Two useful posts, that it's very interesting.
You can do it all right.
No alcohol, no family history, healthy lifestyle but the biggest risk factor of all is age and you can't do anything about that. 80% of BC are in women over 50. That's why screening starts at 50 though I suspect if there were no cost implications it would start earlier.

My tumour was 7mm. That's tiny. They can tell from the biopsy what type of cancer it is and as @Crwysmam says there are very many variations. Mine was so aggressive the oncologist said I was extraordinarily lucky it had been caught so early. I had surgery, chemo, radio and immunotherapy. Then five years of annual mammograms. Now I am back in the five year cycle and I can't tell you how much I would prefer to go more often.

There are always a few "anti mammogrammers" I tend to think of them like anti vaxxers - they've done their research on google and prefer to ignore the cumulative expertise of scientists and doctors.
That's fine, they have free choice. What's not fine IMO is trying to put women off. It's not easy for many women to go and quite easy to postpone it or avoid it.

Kielys72 · 22/10/2025 11:49

bringonyourwreckingball · 21/10/2025 22:30

However bad you find a mammogram I can promise you breast cancer is worse.

This ⬆️⬆️⬆️

Almostwelsh · 22/10/2025 11:58

isitmyturn · 22/10/2025 11:47

Two useful posts, that it's very interesting.
You can do it all right.
No alcohol, no family history, healthy lifestyle but the biggest risk factor of all is age and you can't do anything about that. 80% of BC are in women over 50. That's why screening starts at 50 though I suspect if there were no cost implications it would start earlier.

My tumour was 7mm. That's tiny. They can tell from the biopsy what type of cancer it is and as @Crwysmam says there are very many variations. Mine was so aggressive the oncologist said I was extraordinarily lucky it had been caught so early. I had surgery, chemo, radio and immunotherapy. Then five years of annual mammograms. Now I am back in the five year cycle and I can't tell you how much I would prefer to go more often.

There are always a few "anti mammogrammers" I tend to think of them like anti vaxxers - they've done their research on google and prefer to ignore the cumulative expertise of scientists and doctors.
That's fine, they have free choice. What's not fine IMO is trying to put women off. It's not easy for many women to go and quite easy to postpone it or avoid it.

Show quote history

Screening starts at 50 because breast tissue in younger women is more dense and screening mammograms are less likely to pick up on an abnormality.

As for getting information off doctor Google, the statistics are available from the NHS itself, as are the statistics concerning false positives. The information comes in the post with your screening invitation. It's not remotely like anti-vax. There is also the important distinction that any risk is taken by the woman only, not the wider population as in a vaccine refuser. As far as I'm aware you can't transmit breast cancer to others. Nor does the screening prevent breast cancer.

When we are looking at death rates over 25 years of 1% for a non-screened population you have to consider that there is a death rate well over 1% from any cause in the next 25 years in a person over 50. Getting old kills people.

mondaytosunday · 22/10/2025 12:17

@Fidgety31but not going isn’t going to make it not be there.
@MumoftwoNCit is not the same. I had an excruciating smear last time and it seems obvious that it may be of varying degrees of pain - I would be er say it was pain free even before my last one. But while a mammogram can certainly be uncomfortable I’ve never met a single woman say it was painful (I’m not denying that it may be painful - though that in itself seems to be a reason to have one). I’ve certainly had women say smears are painful. The nurse/technician is key here, more in terms of putting you at ease and being respectful while handling you.

MumoftwoNC · 22/10/2025 12:23

mondaytosunday · 22/10/2025 12:17

@Fidgety31but not going isn’t going to make it not be there.
@MumoftwoNCit is not the same. I had an excruciating smear last time and it seems obvious that it may be of varying degrees of pain - I would be er say it was pain free even before my last one. But while a mammogram can certainly be uncomfortable I’ve never met a single woman say it was painful (I’m not denying that it may be painful - though that in itself seems to be a reason to have one). I’ve certainly had women say smears are painful. The nurse/technician is key here, more in terms of putting you at ease and being respectful while handling you.

I’ve never met a single woman say it was painful

There are several women on this thread alone who have said their mammograms were extremely painful.

Wrenjay · 22/10/2025 12:32

Saved my life twice. Tissue change first time cancer: Would have been a big issue if it had got to the stage of a pea sized lump. Seventeen years later same breast and different cancer found on mammogram. This would never have been discovered as a lump as that type does not form a lump. Both very early stage am clear again. Always go for your regular check up mammogram it is well worth the discomfort.

Karatema · 22/10/2025 12:34

Mine are awful but it doesn’t stop me from going! The pain is for about 2 minutes in each breast x 4. The prospect of losing a breast is way scarier!

Coffeetime25 · 22/10/2025 12:37

SereneLime · 22/10/2025 05:17

I can’t believe the people saying they’ll take their chances. When I was diagnosed, with no family history, slim, active, non smoker, I had young DC and it was like being hit by a bus in my early thirties. Surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, hormones for 5 years.

I’ve been to too many funerals.

That said, I respect people’s right to refuse screening and treatment.

i only have that attitude from having one mammogram it was horrendous and the person doing it wasn't much better the whole experience put me off for life so my I'll take my chances was formed by that one experience prior to that I thought they where vital

i do advocate smears though if I can have a baby and do the necessary to make a baby then I can have a smear

Almostwelsh · 22/10/2025 12:39

MumoftwoNC · 22/10/2025 12:23

I’ve never met a single woman say it was painful

There are several women on this thread alone who have said their mammograms were extremely painful.

Show quote history

I've known lots of people say it was painful. My mum went for one and said it was so painful she was waiting to hear the crack of her ribs breaking. (They didn't)!

That in itself wouldn't put me off going however, if I was confident it would prevent breast cancer. I go for smears and have had colposcopy with biopsy which was painful but worth it to prevent cervical cancer.

But screening mammograms won't and can't prevent breast cancer. And the false positive rate definitely does put me off

TeaRoseTallulah · 22/10/2025 12:41

Our area has been trialling mammograms earlier than 50 to see if it's worth starting them earlier. During that trial my friend's cancer was picked up at 48, it was very small and removed by lumpectomy and she had radiotherapy but it was aggressive so had she not had one until 50 it would've been a different story.

I lost another friend to BC, she had her first mammogram at 50 and was dead less than a year later so I am all for them being done earlier and yearly like they do on the States.

SereneLime · 22/10/2025 13:03

Almostwelsh · 22/10/2025 11:58

Screening starts at 50 because breast tissue in younger women is more dense and screening mammograms are less likely to pick up on an abnormality.

As for getting information off doctor Google, the statistics are available from the NHS itself, as are the statistics concerning false positives. The information comes in the post with your screening invitation. It's not remotely like anti-vax. There is also the important distinction that any risk is taken by the woman only, not the wider population as in a vaccine refuser. As far as I'm aware you can't transmit breast cancer to others. Nor does the screening prevent breast cancer.

When we are looking at death rates over 25 years of 1% for a non-screened population you have to consider that there is a death rate well over 1% from any cause in the next 25 years in a person over 50. Getting old kills people.

Show quote history

Men do get breast cancer and die from it, although it’s more common in women.

Crwysmam · 22/10/2025 15:39

Almostwelsh · 22/10/2025 08:53

The 1 in 7 figure doesn't mean 1 in 7 are diagnosed by screening though. Lots of diagnosis come from the woman herself finding a lump or other breast issue and going to her doctor.

I am aware of the prevalence of breast cancer, having had at least 5 friends with a diagnosis and at least one death. None of those were diagnosed by screening, as they were all under 50 at diagnosis.

Show quote history

1 in 7 refers to whole population. 30% of those diagnosed every year ( 15 in every 100 women) are found during screening so statistically, from the 15 women in 100 that are diagnosed 5 will find out via screening. Probably at a much earlier stage than if they waited until they discover a lump. The average time from mutation to the stage when a lump can be felt (2-3cm) is about 2yrs. So by the time you are diagnosed the cancer has had up to 2 yrs to do its thing.

Obviously, some tumours grow faster and some slower. The larger the tumour the more difficult it becomes to remove it via tissue saving procedures. Not all tumours form a discrete mass, some are diffuse, such as inflammatory bc. Screening will not catch all types of tumour, lobular is often harder to detect early on screening and of course younger women’s breasts are denser so harder to see lesions.

It is definitely not the total solution but statistically very important part of the breast cancer service.

Crwysmam · 22/10/2025 16:00

Almostwelsh · 22/10/2025 12:39

I've known lots of people say it was painful. My mum went for one and said it was so painful she was waiting to hear the crack of her ribs breaking. (They didn't)!

That in itself wouldn't put me off going however, if I was confident it would prevent breast cancer. I go for smears and have had colposcopy with biopsy which was painful but worth it to prevent cervical cancer.

But screening mammograms won't and can't prevent breast cancer. And the false positive rate definitely does put me off

Show quote history

Preventing cancer isn’t the roll of screening, it never has been. Its purpose is to diagnose cancer at a much earlier stage than possible without it. Thereby permitting early diagnosis and treatment with an increased survival rates.
I have had an extra 4 yrs so far, and with every year we get closer to an absolute cure. Even if I don’t live long enough to see that cure I may benefit from advanced palliative treatment that will allow me to live a longer life.

I lost my DSis last year to pancreatic cancer, which has a miserable survival rate of around 5%. She had bc at 34 and enjoyed 22 yrs cancer free until her diagnosis. Pancreatic cancer is very much a silent killer with currently no effective screening. Those who survive pancreatic cancer are often diagnosed really early and usually as the result of an incidental find. The vast majority don’t find out until they have passed the point of no return. My Dsis’s cancer was initially thought to be advanced ovarian cancer due to the location of the large abdominal mass that caused her symptoms. We received the biopsy results 3 days before she died. It was actually quite a shock since we assumed the cancer was related to her original breast cancer and had undergone genetic testing so that our family could take action/ have future screening. The genetic testing showed no known mutations. She was just very unlucky.

I have always been a glass half full type of person but after my bc journey and meeting other bc sufferers, no one should rely on stats or healthy living. It can happen to anyone regardless of how good you think you are.

Crwysmam · 22/10/2025 16:20

Coffeetime25 · 22/10/2025 12:37

i only have that attitude from having one mammogram it was horrendous and the person doing it wasn't much better the whole experience put me off for life so my I'll take my chances was formed by that one experience prior to that I thought they where vital

i do advocate smears though if I can have a baby and do the necessary to make a baby then I can have a smear

Show quote history

Much as I support your choice, treatment of breast cancer, particularly late diagnosed is soul destroying. Mastectomy with reconstruction, chemo and radiotherapy are really not comparable to a 2-3 minute mammogram. They are all incredibly invasive and dehumanising experiences despite the wonderful care you receive in bc units.

Even caught early you are subjected to surgery, chemo ( sometimes) and radiotherapy. But with potentially a better prognosis.

I hate my annual mammogram, not because it’s painful but because it triggers the nightmares, the sleepless nights and terror of going through diagnosis and treatment. It’s very much a psychological fear since I had textbook treatment and journey. I had a breast surgeon whose professionalism, empathy and skill meant that my boob looks better than before I had bc. Early diagnosis means that I have a less than 3% chan of it returning. But every year I have to look over my shoulder and face that fear again. I do it because the alternative of ignoring it or “taking my chances” is far more frightening than a quick mammogram to reassure me that all is well for another year.

Almostwelsh · 22/10/2025 16:22

Crwysmam · 22/10/2025 16:00

Preventing cancer isn’t the roll of screening, it never has been. Its purpose is to diagnose cancer at a much earlier stage than possible without it. Thereby permitting early diagnosis and treatment with an increased survival rates.
I have had an extra 4 yrs so far, and with every year we get closer to an absolute cure. Even if I don’t live long enough to see that cure I may benefit from advanced palliative treatment that will allow me to live a longer life.

I lost my DSis last year to pancreatic cancer, which has a miserable survival rate of around 5%. She had bc at 34 and enjoyed 22 yrs cancer free until her diagnosis. Pancreatic cancer is very much a silent killer with currently no effective screening. Those who survive pancreatic cancer are often diagnosed really early and usually as the result of an incidental find. The vast majority don’t find out until they have passed the point of no return. My Dsis’s cancer was initially thought to be advanced ovarian cancer due to the location of the large abdominal mass that caused her symptoms. We received the biopsy results 3 days before she died. It was actually quite a shock since we assumed the cancer was related to her original breast cancer and had undergone genetic testing so that our family could take action/ have future screening. The genetic testing showed no known mutations. She was just very unlucky.

I have always been a glass half full type of person but after my bc journey and meeting other bc sufferers, no one should rely on stats or healthy living. It can happen to anyone regardless of how good you think you are.

Show quote history

I know breast cancer prevention isn't the role of screening. I'm just mentioning that because some posters have been saying things like "getting breast cancer is a lot worse than having a mammogram" while true, this comes across as a bit spiteful and is unnecessary, as going for mammograms isn't BC prevention.

Almostwelsh · 22/10/2025 16:42

SereneLime · 22/10/2025 13:03

Men do get breast cancer and die from it, although it’s more common in women.

Show quote history

That's not relevant to the discussion though, as men don't get invited to BC screenings

Crwysmam · 22/10/2025 16:43

Almostwelsh · 22/10/2025 16:22

I know breast cancer prevention isn't the role of screening. I'm just mentioning that because some posters have been saying things like "getting breast cancer is a lot worse than having a mammogram" while true, this comes across as a bit spiteful and is unnecessary, as going for mammograms isn't BC prevention.

Show quote history

That may be because being diagnosed with breast cancer is on a different level of torture than a mammogram. And unless you have experienced both then you can’t compare. The reality is that you can’t prevent cancer but prognosis is so much better if caught early. The definition of screening is to “separate out”, they separate out those who have bc.

Having a sibling diagnosed with bc at 34 was very frightening, we all know that your risk of developing bc increases if you have close family members with bc. When I started having mammograms in our local family clinic, it was purely for reassurance that I didn’t have bc. My bc is/was unrelated to my DSis bc, but as a youngish ( 38) woman it was never far from the surface. Mine was found on routine screening when I was 57, nearly 20 yrs after my DSis was diagnosed.

My yearly mammograms meant that I knew if it was picked up it would be early on and therefore I would have a better prognosis.

In addition having a long timeline of mammograms, it is much easier to spot early changes or lesions. As I have said in a previous post, mine would have been picked up 12 mnths earlier but my 3 truly, post 50 mammogram was delayed due to the pandemic.

We are fed a lot of statistics about cancer but going through the diagnosis and treatment process highlights the fact that every one of those 1 in 7 women are actually real people. They are not just numbers. Each with their own experience, good or bad, but nearly every one of them wishes that their cancer could have been detected at the earliest stage possible, before it presented as a lump or in their bones or liver.

All the treatments leave you with a daily reminder of what you’ve been through. I try not to look back but since I had my annual mammogram last week I am in limbo again until that letter drops through the letterbox. Prior to bc it never bothered me. I was invincible and trusted in the stats.

DancingLions · 22/10/2025 17:00

I had to have a bronchoscopy a few months ago. Everyone told me how awful they are. The doctor came in to chat with me beforehand and even he warned me of certain aspects of it, said that not everyone can tolerate it etc. It was absolutely fine. Didn't bother me at all. I wouldn't then announce to everyone "oh it's nothing". Clearly I was lucky. It doesn't mean other people are just making a fuss because they have struggled with it. You were lucky OP, that's all.

I won't have a mammogram for the reasons other pp's have stated. I remember getting the invite and leaflet and I remember being hugely shocked by what I felt was a large percentage of women who end up having treatment they may well not have needed. And that was in the NHS own leaflet encouraging me to go!

I firmly believe you can go looking for trouble. The whole reason I had the bronchoscopy was because I took "advantage" of a mobile chest x ray (they were screening for TB). That led to a CT scan which has led to close to 18 months of various tests. Apparently there is "something" wrong with my lungs. They don't know what. It doesn't affect me, I have no symptoms. I'm having my 4th CT scan soon. All that radiation in a relatively short amount of time does worry me! And still no diagnosis. But now I started the whole thing, I'm stuck. I can't ignore what they found. But at the same time, I'm increasing my cancer risk with all these scans. I do think I'd have been better off not knowing if and until there was actually a symptom of something.