Why can't an MRI show all that is needed for a momogram?!
Question: Is the mamogram really the right way? yes or no?
Why can't our body parts be placed in a transparent cone and then have an MRI done on them?
Answers: Is the mamogram really the right way? yes or no?
Why can't our body parts be placed in a transparent cone and then have an MRI done on them?
Or, you could have them checked by someone who was an expert in tactile palpation, like, for instance, a massage therapist. It's cheaper, about as informative and a lot more fun. With the right therapist, that is. : )
An MRI probably could show most soft tissue masses. But an MRI costs >$2000 (and I think that is after govt subsidization) and can take an hour, not to mention you may need contrast media to visualize the required structures. A mammogram is relatively cheap and doesn't take an hour. If everyone had MRIs the health care system would be in even worse shape than it already suffers. Kind of like there's no good reason to get chest CT scans on asymptomatic smokers even though it would be a good test to check for possible lung cancer. It's not in the least cost effective. But if you have the money there are radiology centers that will do full body scans annually; it isn't cheap.
(I am not a doctor)
Both methods have their advantages and drawbacks. MRI is more sensitive than mammography, but tends to pick up more "false positives" like calcium deposits and the like. Mammography is often cheaper and/or better covered by insurance. Currently, MRI is recommended most for women who are at high risk of cancer, but in the future it may be the standard diagnostic tool much like mammography is today..