Reply #83: Not necessarily so. Breast cancer lump size doesn't correlate to the lethality of the tumor.

[Berry Cool]

It bothers me that even Elizabeth Edwards, whom you would think would know better, believes it does.

Most breast tumors HAVE been present and growing for about 10 years before they are ever discovered...even on a mammogram. They can be there for 10 years' worth of mammograms, yet they might not show up until year 10.

The pathology of any malignant breast tumor depends on the nature of the tumor, not the size. Teeny tiny tumors can be vicious, malignant killers. Large lumps can be relatively slow, lazy tumors that, once removed, don't recur.

Don't let the publicity fool you that "early detection means your cancer won't be fatal." It's a sad lie. Early detection just may give you more treatment options. But even mammograms don't guarantee early detection.

Elizabeth is needlessly blaming herself for the fact that her cancer has turned out to be aggressive. It would have been just as aggressive anyway, and it might not have turned up at all on earlier mammograms had she had them, so the point is moot.

Mammograms are not the be-all and end-all of breast cancer detection that they are sometimes touted to be. We need something better. We also need a way to prevent the disease in the first place...something better than telling women it's all up to them to do it through diet and exercise. Obviously other factors are at play here in why some women get such aggressive cancers. Otherwise, Linda McCartney, a slim vegetarian, would be alive today.