Mammograms

Both conventional (analog) and digital mammograms are still in use, but in major cities most facilities that do a lot of mammograms (and state-of-the-art imaging) have switched to digital. Similar to you photos at home, there is a great deal of benefit to being able to post-process or adjust the images for better contrast, magnification, etc. Also viewing on a computer moniter is beneficial. That being said, a large scale study was performed by Dr. Etta Pisano when digital first came out. The study determined that digital mammograms will benefit women with dense breast tissue, and those who are under age 40. So, if you are not in these categories then it is OK to get an analog study.

My personal opinion, yes, digital mammograms are the norm for NYC, where I practice. Both conventional (analog) and digital mammograms are still in use, but in major cities most facilities that do a lot of mammograms (and state-of-the-art imaging) have switched to digital. Similar to you photos at home, there is a great deal of benefit to being able to post-process or adjust the images for better contrast, magnification, etc. Also viewing on a computer moniter is beneficial. That being said, a large scale study was performed by Dr. Etta Pisano when digital first came out. The study determined that digital mammograms will benefit women with dense breast tissue, and those who are under age 40. So, if you are not in these categories then it is OK to get an analog study.

My personal opinion, yes, digital mammograms are the norm for NYC, where I practice.

Mammograms have a failure rate of 10%, for women with dense breast tissue it is over 40%. this is not really the best imaging tool. there are others with potential, but the Mammogram Machine makers are large contributors to facilities and Cancer Societies, therefore the lock step validations.
Two issues were against my making an informed decision, first I was not aware of dense breast tissue, was never told by any treating professional, and only two states have made it a law to advise women, Connecticut and Texas.
My own Governor Brown of California had the bill to do so on his desk and on the last day to sign it into law he refused saying incredibly, "he did not want to cause women to have anxiety, and also possibly saving your life is too expensive to suggest better screening. "Liberal" democrat Governor Brown, "Conservative" Republican governor Perry did care about women's lives. Shame on you Mr. Brown.
I agreed to a six months wait and watch delay. Never would have, had I understood dense breast and mammography failure. the ultrasound failed as well. When six months later I heard "biopsy," I went for a second opinion of my choice.
I drove 100+ miles to Venice Beach, Ca. to Dr. Kevin Kelly, 30+ year radiologist focusing on breasts. Dr. Kelly invented SonoCine, a different way of screening using an ultrasound. A full 11 days, two core biopsies and an MRI after, my "esteemed" Imaging unit gave me the exact diagnosis. Dr. Kelly told me that there was no cancer where they were looking, but beyond and deeper is where his SonoCine detected my cancer, pathology reports support this as well.

Don't tell me there are not any other screening methods, stop stonewalling them.

Teresa Masters I'm not really familiar with thermography, but despite the appeal of avoiding exposure to ionizing radiation it's just not proven to be effective yet.

It needs rigorous testing, which is why it's not FDA approved yet. At least one study show poor sensitivity - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21377664

And now MRI can do some thermal imaging, but this too needs careful testing: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20432295

There is no perfect test, and adding more tests may make it more confusing and stressful. So how do I feel? Stick with the evidence, not the anecdote.