Author Topic: Interesting... Gov't and cancer?  (Read 5157 times)

grey54956

  • New Member
  • Posts: 80
Interesting... Gov't and cancer?
« on: November 16, 2009, 08:50:42 PM »
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,575354,00.html

New Cancer Guidelines Say to Start Mammograms at 50, Not 40

Monday, November 16, 2009

NEW YORK —  Most women don't need a mammogram in their 40s and should get one every two years starting at 50, a government task force said Monday. It's a major reversal that conflicts with the American Cancer Society's long-standing position.

Also, the task force said breast self-exams do no good and women shouldn't be taught to do them.

For most of the past two decades, the cancer society has been recommending annual mammograms beginning at 40.

But the government panel of doctors and scientists concluded that getting screened for breast cancer so early and so often leads to too many false alarms and unneeded biopsies without substantially improving women's odds of survival.

"The benefits are less and the harms are greater when screening starts in the 40s," said Dr. Diana Petitti, vice chair of the panel.

The new guidelines were issued by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, whose stance influences coverage of screening tests by Medicare and many insurance companies.

But Susan Pisano, a spokeswoman for America's Health Insurance Plans, an industry group, said insurance coverage isn't likely to change because of the new guidelines. No changes are planned in Medicare coverage either, said Dori Salcido, spokeswoman for the Health and Human Services department.

Experts expect the task force revisions to be hotly debated, and to cause confusion for women and their doctors.

"Our concern is that as a result of that confusion, women may elect not to get screened at all. And that, to me, would be a serious problem," said Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, the cancer society's deputy chief medical officer.

The guidelines are for the general population, not those at high risk of breast cancer because of family history or gene mutations that would justify having mammograms sooner or more often.

The new advice says:

—Most women in their 40s should not routinely get mammograms.

—Women 50 to 74 should get a mammogram every other year until they turn 75, after which the risks and benefits are unknown. (The task force's previous guidelines had no upper limit and called for exams every year or two.)

—The value of breast exams by doctors is unknown. And breast self-exams are of no value.

Medical groups such as the cancer society have been backing off promoting breast self-exams in recent years because of scant evidence of their effectiveness. Decades ago, the practice was so heavily promoted that organizations distributed cards that could be hung in the shower demonstrating the circular motion women should use to feel for lumps in their breasts.

The guidelines and research supporting them were released Monday and are being published in Tuesday's issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The new advice was sharply challenged by the cancer society.

"This is one screening test I recommend unequivocally, and would recommend to any woman 40 and over," the society's chief medical officer, Dr. Otis Brawley, said in a statement.

The task force advice is based on its conclusion that screening 1,300 women in their 50s to save one life is worth it, but that screening 1,900 women in their 40s to save a life is not, Brawley wrote.

That stance "is essentially telling women that mammography at age 40 to 49 saves lives, just not enough of them," he said. The cancer society feels the benefits outweigh the harms for women in both groups.

International guidelines also call for screening to start at age 50; the World Health Organization recommends the test every two years, Britain says every three years.

Breast cancer is the most common cancer and the second leading cause of cancer deaths in American women. More than 192,000 new cases and 40,000 deaths from the disease are expected in the U.S. this year.

Mammograms can find cancer early, and two-thirds of women over 40 report having had the test in the previous two years. But how much they cut the risk of dying of the disease, and at what cost in terms of unneeded biopsies, expense and worry, have been debated.

In most women, tumors are slow-growing, and that likelihood increases with age. So there is little risk by extending the time between mammograms, some researchers say. Even for the minority of women with aggressive, fast-growing tumors, annual screening will make little difference in survival odds.

The new guidelines balance these risks and benefits, scientists say.

The probability of dying of breast cancer after age 40 is 3 percent, they calculate. Getting a mammogram every other year from ages 50 to 69 lowers that risk by about 16 percent.

"It's an average of five lives saved per thousand women screened," said Georgetown University researcher Dr. Jeanne Mandelblatt.

Starting at age 40 would prevent one additional death but also lead to 470 false alarms for every 1,000 women screened. Continuing mammograms through age 79 prevents three additional deaths but raises the number of women treated for breast cancers that would not threaten their lives.

"You save more lives because breast cancer is more common, but you diagnose tumors in women who were destined to die of something else. The overdiagnosis increases in older women," Mandelblatt said.

She led six teams around the world who used federal data on cancer and mammography to develop mathematical models of what would happen if women were screened at different ages and time intervals. Their conclusions helped shape the new guidelines.

Several medical groups say they are sticking to their guidelines that call for routine screening starting at 40.

"Screening isn't perfect. But it's the best thing we have. And it works," said Dr. Carol Lee, a spokeswoman for the American College of Radiology. She suggested that cutting health care costs may have played a role in the decision, but Petitti said the task force does not consider cost or insurance in its review.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also has qualms. The organization's Dr. Hal Lawrence said there is still significant benefit to women in their 40s, adding: "We think that women deserve that benefit."

But Dr. Amy Abernethy of the Duke Comprehensive Cancer Center agreed with the task force's changes.

"Overall, I think it really took courage for them to do this," she said. "It does ask us as doctors to change what we do and how we communicate with patients. That's no small undertaking."

Abernethy, who is 41, said she got her first mammogram the day after her 40th birthday, even though she wasn't convinced it was needed. Now she doesn't plan to have another mammogram until she is 50.

Barbara Brenner, executive director of the San Francisco-based Breast Cancer Action, said the group was "thrilled" with the revisions. The advocacy group doesn't support screening before menopause, and will be changing its suggested interval from yearly to every two years, she said.

Mammograms, like all medical interventions, have risks and benefits, she said.

"Women are entitled to know what they are and to make their best decisions," she said. "These guidelines will help that conversation."


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, gov't doesn't want women in their 40's to get breast cancer screening.  I can think of no good reason for this.  I can think of many malign reasons for this.  Apparently, gov't wants people to die.  It's cheaper that way.

And as far as the unnecessary biopsies go, I don't know if any biopsy is unnecessary.  If you don't have cancer, great news.  If you do have cancer, now you know.  Hate to not get a biopsy when it could provide vital, life saving information.
"There are no carefully crafted arguments here, just a sausage-chain of emotional crotch-grabs." - Longeyes

"I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye and see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain." -- Frank Herbert, Dune

MillCreek

  • Skippy The Wonder Dog
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 20,017
  • APS Risk Manager
Re: Interesting... Gov't and cancer?
« Reply #1 on: November 16, 2009, 09:19:31 PM »
Suffice it to say that many, many reputable medical experts and professional associations disagree with you.  I work in healthcare, and the recommendations for screening tests do change over time as more data is available.  Your notion that this is a government plot deserves a [tinfoil]
_____________
Regards,
MillCreek
Snohomish County, WA  USA


Quote from: Angel Eyes on August 09, 2018, 01:56:15 AM
You are one lousy risk manager.

Headless Thompson Gunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,517
Re: Interesting... Gov't and cancer?
« Reply #2 on: November 16, 2009, 09:24:27 PM »
Do mammograms for women in their 40's ever save lives?

Does the fact that they're no longer recommended mean that some women who might want them won't be able to get them anymore, say due to insurance/government no longer covering them?

Seems to me that the government is saying one thing, and the knowledge accrued over the past few decades says something else.  I think it's right to be skeptical and look deeper into this.  Certainly it isn't tinfoilery.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2009, 09:27:32 PM by Headless Thompson Gunner »

BridgeRunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,845
Re: Interesting... Gov't and cancer?
« Reply #3 on: November 16, 2009, 09:30:24 PM »
Breast biopsies often destroy the functionality of the breast.  For a woman in her forties, this is not usually a major issue, although that generalization is increasingly false.  For women in their twenties and thirties, a breast biopsy often destroys the function of a needed organ.

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,483
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: Interesting... Gov't and cancer?
« Reply #4 on: November 16, 2009, 09:39:27 PM »
 [popcorn]  IBTL
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

Headless Thompson Gunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,517
Re: Interesting... Gov't and cancer?
« Reply #5 on: November 16, 2009, 09:48:53 PM »
Breast biopsies often destroy the functionality of the breast. 
They do?  I've never heard that before.

Gewehr98

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 11,010
  • Yee-haa!
    • Neural Misfires (Blog)
Re: Interesting... Gov't and cancer?
« Reply #6 on: November 16, 2009, 09:53:09 PM »
Cheese & Rice, how big a biopsy are we talking here?

Lumpectomy or radical mastectomy?   :O
"Bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round...

http://neuralmisfires.blogspot.com

"Never squat with your spurs on!"

MillCreek

  • Skippy The Wonder Dog
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 20,017
  • APS Risk Manager
Re: Interesting... Gov't and cancer?
« Reply #7 on: November 16, 2009, 09:55:09 PM »
November 17, 2009
In Reversal, Panel Urges Mammograms at 50, Not 40
By GINA KOLATA

Most women should start regular breast cancer screening at age 50, not 40, according to new guidelines released Monday by an influential group that provides guidance to doctors, insurance companies and policy makers.

The new recommendations, which do not apply to a small group of women with unusual risk factors for breast cancer, reverse longstanding guidelines and are aimed at reducing harm from overtreatment, the group says. It also says women age 50 to 74 should have mammograms less frequently — every two years, rather than every year. And it said doctors should stop teaching women to examine their breasts on a regular basis.

Just seven years ago, the same group, the United States Preventive Services Task Force, with different members, recommended that women have mammograms every one to two years starting at age 40. It found too little evidence to take a stand on breast self-examinations.

The task force is an independent panel of experts in prevention and primary care appointed by the federal Department of Health and Human Services.

Its new guidelines, which are different from those of some professional and advocacy organizations, are published online in The Annals of Internal Medicine They are likely to touch off yet another round of controversy over the benefits of screening for breast cancer.

Dr. Diana Petitti, vice chairwoman of the task force and a professor of biomedical informatics at Arizona State University, said the guidelines were based on new data and analyses and were aimed at reducing the potential harm from overscreening.

While many women do not think a screening test can be harmful, medical experts say the risks are real. A test can trigger unnecessary further tests, like biopsies, that can create extreme anxiety. And mammograms can find cancers that grow so slowly that they never would be noticed in a woman’s lifetime, resulting in unnecessary treatment.

Over all, the report says, the modest benefit of mammograms — reducing the breast cancer death rate by 15 percent — must be weighed against the harms. And those harms loom larger for women in their 40s, who are 60 percent more likely to experience them than women 50 and older but are less likely to have breast cancer, skewing the risk-benefit equation. The task force concluded that one cancer death is prevented for every 1,904 women age 40 to 49 who are screened for 10 years, compared with one death for every 1,339 women age 50 to 74, and one death for every 377 women age 60 to 69.

The guidelines are not meant for women at increased risk for breast cancer because they have a gene mutation that makes the cancer more likely or because they had extensive chest radiation. The task force said there was not enough information to know whether those women would be helped by more frequent mammograms or by having the test in their 40s. Other experts said women with close relatives with breast cancer were also at high risk.

Dr. Petitti said she knew the new guidelines would be a shock for many women, but, she said, “we have to say what we see based on the science and the data.”

The National Cancer Institute said Monday that it was re-evaluating its guidelines in light of the task force’s report.

But the American Cancer Society and the American College of Radiology both said they were staying with their guidelines advising annual mammograms starting at age 40.

The cancer society, in a statement by Dr. Otis W. Brawley, its chief medical officer, agreed that mammography had risks as well as benefits but, he said, the society’s experts had looked at “virtually all” the task force and additional data and concluded that the benefits of annual mammograms starting at age 40 outweighed the risks.

Other advocacy groups, like the National Breast Cancer Coalition, Breast Cancer Action, and the National Women’s Health Network, welcomed the new guidelines.

“This is our opportunity to look beyond emotions,” said Fran Visco, president of the National Breast Cancer Coalition. The task force “is an independent body of experts that took an objective look at the data,” Ms. Visco said. “These are the people we should be listening to when it comes to public health messages.”

Some women, though, were not pleased. “I know so many people who had breast cancer and survived, and what saved their lives was early detection,” Janet Doughty, 44, of San Clemente, Calif., said in a telephone interview. She said she had had an annual mammogram since her late 30s and would not stop now.

The guidelines are not expected to have an immediate effect on insurance coverage but should make health plans less likely to aggressively prompt women in their 40s to have mammograms and older women to have the test annually.

Congress requires Medicare to pay for annual mammograms. Medicare can change its rules to pay for less frequent tests if federal officials direct it to.

Private insurers are required by law in every state except Utah to pay for mammograms for women in their 40s.

But the new guidelines are expected to alter the grading system for health plans, which are used as a marketing tool. Grades are issued by the National Committee for Quality Assurance, a private nonprofit organization, and one measure is the percentage of patients getting mammograms every one to two years starting at age 40.

That will change, said Margaret E. O’Kane, the group’s president, who said it would start grading plans on the number of women over 50 getting mammograms every two years.

The message for most women, said Dr. Karla Kerlikowske, a professor in the department of medicine, epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco, is to forgo routine mammograms if they are in their 40s.

Starting at age 50, Dr. Kerlikowske said, “the message is to get 10 mammograms in a lifetime, one every two years.” That way they get the most benefit and the least harm from the test. If women are healthy, she added, they might consider having mammograms every two years until age 74.

Nearly two-thirds of all women in their 40s had mammograms within the last two years, as did 72 percent of women age 50 to 65, according to an editorial by Dr. Kerlikowske that accompanies the report.

In order to formulate its guidelines, the task force used new data from mammography studies in England and Sweden and also commissioned six groups to make statistical models to analyze the aggregate data. The models were the only way to answer questions like how much extra benefit do women get if they are screened every year, said Donald A. Berry, a statistician at the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center and head of one of the modeling groups.

“We said, essentially with one voice, very little,” Dr. Berry said. “So little as to make the harms of additional screening come screaming to the top.”

The harms are nearly cut in half when women have mammograms every other year instead of every year. But the benefits are almost unchanged.

The last time the task force issued guidelines for mammograms, in 2002, the reportwas announced by Tommy G. Thompson, the secretary of health and human services. When the group recommended mammograms for women in their 40s, some charged the report was politically motivated. But Dr. Alfred Berg of the University of Washington, who was the task force chairman at the time, said “there was absolutely zero political influence on what the task force did.”

It was still a tough call to make, Dr. Berg said, adding that “we pointed out that the benefit will be quite small.” In fact, he added, even though mammograms are of greater benefit to older women, they still prevent only a small fraction of breast cancer deaths.

Different women will weigh the harms and benefits differently, Dr. Berg noted, but added that even for women 50 and older, “it would be perfectly rational for a woman to decide she didn’t want to do it.”

Researchers worry the new report will be interpreted as a political effort by the Obama administration to save money on health care costs.

Of course, Dr. Berry noted, if the new guidelines are followed, billions of dollars will be saved.

“But the money was buying something of net negative value,” he said. “This decision is a no-brainer. The economy benefits, but women are the major beneficiaries.”

Roni Caryn Rabin contributed reporting.
_____________
Regards,
MillCreek
Snohomish County, WA  USA


Quote from: Angel Eyes on August 09, 2018, 01:56:15 AM
You are one lousy risk manager.

MillCreek

  • Skippy The Wonder Dog
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 20,017
  • APS Risk Manager
Re: Interesting... Gov't and cancer?
« Reply #8 on: November 16, 2009, 09:58:34 PM »
Cheese & Rice, how big a biopsy are we talking here?

Lumpectomy or radical mastectomy?   :O

It of course depends on the size of the lesion compared to the size of the breast.  With ultrasound or MRI-guided biopsy, they can get pretty precise at removing or sampling the suspicious tissue while trying to save as much normal tissue as possible.  Someone who is a 40D having a 2 cm. lesion removed will have an imperceptible effect on appearance.  Someone who is a 32A having a 2 cm. lesion removed will probably have a perceptible affect on appearance.

Interference with function also depends on the size and location of the lesion.  Certainly, removal of tissue in the milk-ducts can interfere with the ability to nurse.
_____________
Regards,
MillCreek
Snohomish County, WA  USA


Quote from: Angel Eyes on August 09, 2018, 01:56:15 AM
You are one lousy risk manager.

MillCreek

  • Skippy The Wonder Dog
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 20,017
  • APS Risk Manager
Re: Interesting... Gov't and cancer?
« Reply #9 on: November 16, 2009, 10:07:21 PM »
Quote
Seems to me that the government is saying one thing, and the knowledge accrued over the past few decades says something else.  I think it's right to be skeptical and look deeper into this.  Certainly it isn't tinfoilery.

The very point is that the new current knowledge suggests that the former mammography guidelines did not offer sufficient benefit to offset the risk of routine mammography starting at age 40.  So the knowledge accrued over the past few decades, when analyzed anew, leads to new conclusions.  Science marches on, and you have to go where the data takes you.

I am not surprised by the initial stance of the American Cancer Society.  I do medmal claims defense for a living, and laypeople really and truly believe that all cancers can be detected early, and if all cancers are detected early, you can be cured.  This comes up frequently during voir dire questioning of jurors in cancer diagnosis cases.  The ACS has done a marvelous job of convincing people about the value of screening, and that screening equals detection and detection equals cure.  But those of us working in healthcare know that this is often not true.
_____________
Regards,
MillCreek
Snohomish County, WA  USA


Quote from: Angel Eyes on August 09, 2018, 01:56:15 AM
You are one lousy risk manager.

RaspberrySurprise

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,020
  • Yub yub Commander
Re: Interesting... Gov't and cancer?
« Reply #10 on: November 16, 2009, 10:08:10 PM »
I thought this was going to be about comparing government to cancer...
Look, tiny text!

MillCreek

  • Skippy The Wonder Dog
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 20,017
  • APS Risk Manager
Re: Interesting... Gov't and cancer?
« Reply #11 on: November 16, 2009, 10:13:52 PM »
If you really want to jab the hornets nest with a stick, ask a bunch of primary care physicians and a bunch of radiologists about the value of "whole-body screening' with a CT or MRI. 

Hint: the radiologists who own the machines and derive a direct profit from convincing people to pay out of pocket for a scan think they are the bees knees.

But since almost every scan reveals something that might need to be followed up, countless patients undergo the stress and worry of needless biopsies or followup procedures just to make sure there is nothing there.  And those additional studies or biopsies do carry risk.  And as of yet, there is little, if any, reputable data showing that these scans reduce morbidity or mortality at all.  This is why insurance companies won't pay for them: there is virtually no benefit to the patient compared to the $ 1-2,000 cost. 
_____________
Regards,
MillCreek
Snohomish County, WA  USA


Quote from: Angel Eyes on August 09, 2018, 01:56:15 AM
You are one lousy risk manager.

Headless Thompson Gunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,517
Re: Interesting... Gov't and cancer?
« Reply #12 on: November 16, 2009, 10:22:26 PM »
Based on the articles, it appears that the reason for avoiding mammograms in young folks isn't because of risks with mammograms themselves, it's because of risks from other procedures that sometimes follow a mammogram.

Well, if the problem lies in the response, deal with the response smarter.  Don't bury your head, avoiding the mammogram that might tell you something useful, because you're worried about what you might do with the information you obtained.  Learn to safely deal with the information you obtain.

The article does say that mammograms reduce the death rate by 15%.  I'm not a doctor, nor do I play one on the internet, but if it was my wife I'd tell her to get the mammogram and that we would simply have to be smarter about what to do next (if anything).

MillCreek

  • Skippy The Wonder Dog
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 20,017
  • APS Risk Manager
Re: Interesting... Gov't and cancer?
« Reply #13 on: November 16, 2009, 10:34:08 PM »
I think it interesting that no one here has mentioned that the USPSTF is also concluding that breast self-exams are essentially useless.  And those were all the rage back in the 80's and 90's.  All those women who did them faithfully in the shower once a month now appear to have been wasting their time.  And the article coming out tomorrow in the Annals will show that breast exams by providers are not much better. 
_____________
Regards,
MillCreek
Snohomish County, WA  USA


Quote from: Angel Eyes on August 09, 2018, 01:56:15 AM
You are one lousy risk manager.

MillCreek

  • Skippy The Wonder Dog
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 20,017
  • APS Risk Manager
Re: Interesting... Gov't and cancer?
« Reply #14 on: November 16, 2009, 10:42:10 PM »
Also of note that a common allegation in medmal cases is 'informed refusal'.  This usually comes up in the context of the patient refusing a test, medication or procedure, and then something bad happens to them because they did not follow medical advice.  The patient claims that if the provider had told them about the downsides of refusing care, of course they would have followed the provider's recommendation.

The patient of course has an absolute right to refuse treatment.  But when they refuse treatment over something that can have a bad impact on them, the provider is smart to send a letter spelling out the risks of not following advice.  This is a CYA maneuver so that the patient cannot come back later and claim that they did not know the risks.

As a risk manager, I write those letters.  And remarkably enough, the most common scenario in which I write those letters is breast cases.  The patient has a suspicious looking lesion on mammography or breast exam, but refuses a biopsy.  Their right to do so, but I write them a letter telling them that if it is a cancer that is not diagnosed, they may get very sick or die.  I have had several cases over the years in which having those letters in the chart has prevented my client from being sued.
_____________
Regards,
MillCreek
Snohomish County, WA  USA


Quote from: Angel Eyes on August 09, 2018, 01:56:15 AM
You are one lousy risk manager.

Headless Thompson Gunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,517
Re: Interesting... Gov't and cancer?
« Reply #15 on: November 16, 2009, 11:02:16 PM »
It seems we're paralyzed.  We're afraid to do something, and we're afraid to do nothing. 

Well, it's gotta be one or the other.  Ignorance and ambiguity cannot be guiding factors.

Is the doc required to render an opinion on which is riskier, getting the biopsy or declining it?

BridgeRunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,845
Re: Interesting... Gov't and cancer?
« Reply #16 on: November 16, 2009, 11:20:52 PM »
The pragmatic answer is that it is easier and cheaper to do nothing.

Or at least, to do not much in the way of screenings and such.  Lifestyle factors are a good way to try to avoid cancer.  Not always effective, but then neither is the screening, and unlike the screenings, those have many other benefits.

And in the case of breast cancer, there is some evidence that using them reduces the risk of them getting cancerous.  I figure that after 42 months of nursing with no end in sight, I've got a pretty good start on breast cancer prevention.

RevDisk

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,633
    • RevDisk.net
Re: Interesting... Gov't and cancer?
« Reply #17 on: November 16, 2009, 11:32:52 PM »
I think it interesting that no one here has mentioned that the USPSTF is also concluding that breast self-exams are essentially useless.  And those were all the rage back in the 80's and 90's.  All those women who did them faithfully in the shower once a month now appear to have been wasting their time.  And the article coming out tomorrow in the Annals will show that breast exams by providers are not much better. 

Selfless guy I am, I shall jump on this grenade. 

The answer is simple.  A large number of guys know relatively little regarding specifics of female health issues.  Cancer and x-rays we get, in a general sense if nothing else.  However, few of us are going to object in any shape or form of any activities involving breasts and showers.


"Rev, your picture is in my King James Bible, where Paul talks about "inventors of evil."  Yes, I know you'll take that as a compliment."  - Fistful, possibly highest compliment I've ever received.

MillCreek

  • Skippy The Wonder Dog
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 20,017
  • APS Risk Manager
Re: Interesting... Gov't and cancer?
« Reply #18 on: November 16, 2009, 11:33:20 PM »
Quote
Is the doc required to render an opinion on which is riskier, getting the biopsy or declining it?

Yes.  In almost all cases, the long-term risk to the patient is greater by declining the biopsy.  Just due to the chance that it might be a serious problem.

In the cases that I come into contact with, the usual reason why the patient declines is that she is paralyzed with fear over the possibility of cancer.  And she chooses to deny the possibility by refusing further diagnostic workup.  However, in most cases, with the passage of time and working with the patient, they often decide to proceed with the biopsy.  Sometimes, though, the patient has made up her mind that even if it is cancer, she will not have it treated even if it kills her.  And so she refuses treatment on that basis.  For a younger and healthy patient, I would certainly disagree with her decision but I respect her right to make her own call for herself.  For an older patient or one with other serious conditions going on, the decision to forego further workup or treatment may make a lot of sense.
_____________
Regards,
MillCreek
Snohomish County, WA  USA


Quote from: Angel Eyes on August 09, 2018, 01:56:15 AM
You are one lousy risk manager.

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,483
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: Interesting... Gov't and cancer?
« Reply #19 on: November 16, 2009, 11:44:42 PM »
I'm amazed we've made it this far without G98 reminding us this is an all-ages forum.   :O


And in the case of breast cancer, there is some evidence that using them reduces the risk of them getting cancerous.  I figure that after 42 months of nursing with no end in sight, I've got a pretty good start on breast cancer prevention.

I've heard that, along with the notion that "early and often" is the best preventive against breast cancer.  But I never knew whether it was good science, or just something that fit in well with the worldview of those I heard it from.  Can anyone shed any light? 

And while we're at it, let's throw in the alleged correlation between abortion and breast cancer.  Just let me cook up some more of that popcorn...
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

MillCreek

  • Skippy The Wonder Dog
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 20,017
  • APS Risk Manager
Re: Interesting... Gov't and cancer?
« Reply #20 on: November 16, 2009, 11:55:23 PM »
Go to this site: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/  and type 'abortion and breast cancer' into the search box and read the studies yourself.  In a nutshell, the early studies that seemed to show a link are now thought to have been methodologically flawed.  More recent and rigorous studies do not show a causal link between induced abortion and subsequent breast cancer risk. 

But as I mentioned earlier, science marches on, and who knows what the data will show twenty years from now.
_____________
Regards,
MillCreek
Snohomish County, WA  USA


Quote from: Angel Eyes on August 09, 2018, 01:56:15 AM
You are one lousy risk manager.

Physics

  • ∇xE=-1/c·∂B/∂t, ∇·E=4πρ, ∇·B=0, ∇xB=1/c·∂E/∂t, F=q(E+v/cxB)
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,315
Re: Interesting... Gov't and cancer?
« Reply #21 on: November 16, 2009, 11:55:49 PM »
This is Mrs. Physics, an ND specializing in women's health.  Regarding the OP:


The known risk factors for breast cancer development (such as family history, genetics, and prolonged exposure to estrogens) account for only 30% of women diagnosed with breast cancer.  The remaining 70% appear to be related to the individual’s external factors such as diet and lifestyle choices.  

Screening mammograms beginning at age 40 involves the exposure to x-ray radiation, which is a harmful entity itself and may increase the risk of breast cancer.  Also, mammography is limited in that it detects structural changes already present in the breast tissue such as a lump(s) or mass(es) and is not very accurate in diagnosing breast cancer in women younger than 40. This is beyond the time-line of ideally implementing prevention strategies.  

I feel it is a risk/benefit discussion that needs to be addressed based on the presenting individual patient.

Self and clinical breast exams are important to implement early on once breast tissue has developed (teenage years) as well as earlier screening in younger women (especially with the above risk factors) for early functional changes in breast tissue with less “invasive” methods such as Digital Infrared Thermography.

Thermography technology consists of a camera and computer to visualize heat patterns which can indicate changes in tissues. Cells with increased cellular activity such as cancer cells will maintain heat radiation after a cold challenge. Breast thermography is the initial screening tool used in France, Germany, Sweden, Spain and Japan.

The Thermography PROs: sensitive and non-invasive method, can effectively detect early changes, no radiation exposure, no mechanical trauma to breast tissue from compression (mammography), no needles (biopsy). Also effective for assessing many types of breast tissue (young women aged 20-40, dense breasts, pregnant women, fibrocystic, implants, and women on HRT).
Strength of breast thermography is during the early phases of rapid tumor growth which go undetectable by CBE or mammogram. This can be 5-8 years before abnormalities would show up on a mammogram.

Breast thermography is a cost-effective screening strategy (~250$) and allows for repeat scans to compare changes over time and monitor treatment and prevention strategies to protect breast tissue from further changes.

Breast thermography as a screening tool is effective when scans are read and interpreted by highly trained and skilled thermographers (certified by the American Board of Thermology).

In the world of science, there is physics.  Everything else is stamp collecting.  -Ernest Rutherford

MillCreek

  • Skippy The Wonder Dog
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 20,017
  • APS Risk Manager
Re: Interesting... Gov't and cancer?
« Reply #22 on: November 17, 2009, 12:07:08 AM »
Integr Cancer Ther. 2009 Mar;8(1):9-16.
A comparative review of thermography as a breast cancer screening technique.

Kennedy DA, Lee T, Seely D.

Department of Research and Clinical Epidemiology, The Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Breast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer of women in North America. Despite advances in treatment that have reduced mortality, breast cancer remains the second leading cause of cancer induced death. Several well established tools are used to screen for breast cancer including clinical breast exams, mammograms, and ultrasound. Thermography was first introduced as a screening tool in 1956 and was initially well accepted. However, after a 1977 study found thermography to lag behind other screening tools, the medical community lost interest in this diagnostic approach. This review discusses each screening tool with a focus brought to thermography. No single tool provides excellent predictability; however, a combination that incorporates thermography may boost both sensitivity and specificity. In light of technological advances and maturation of the thermographic industry, additional research is required to confirm the potential of this technology to provide an effective non-invasive, low risk adjunctive tool for the early detection of breast cancer.

Am J Surg. 2008 Oct;196(4):523-6.
Effectiveness of a noninvasive digital infrared thermal imaging system in the detection of breast cancer.

Arora N, Martins D, Ruggerio D, Tousimis E, Swistel AJ, Osborne MP, Simmons RM.

Department of Surgery, New York Presbyterian Hospital-Cornell, New York, NY, USA.

BACKGROUND: Digital infrared thermal imaging (DITI) has resurfaced in this era of modernized computer technology. Its role in the detection of breast cancer is evaluated. METHODS: In this prospective clinical trial, 92 patients for whom a breast biopsy was recommended based on prior mammogram or ultrasound underwent DITI. Three scores were generated: an overall risk score in the screening mode, a clinical score based on patient information, and a third assessment by artificial neural network. RESULTS: Sixty of 94 biopsies were malignant and 34 were benign. DITI identified 58 of 60 malignancies, with 97% sensitivity, 44% specificity, and 82% negative predictive value depending on the mode used. Compared to an overall risk score of 0, a score of 3 or greater was significantly more likely to be associated with malignancy (30% vs 90%, P < .03). CONCLUSION: DITI is a valuable adjunct to mammography and ultrasound, especially in women with dense breast parenchyma.

Surg Technol Int. 2005;14:51-6.
Advances in breast imaging.

Agnese DM.

Department of Surgery and Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.

Although mammography remains the most widely used tool for the early detection of breast cancers and evaluation of palpable abnormalities, a number of other imaging tools are being developed and used. Ultrasonography (US) is an excellent adjunct to conventional mammography. In addition to identifying solid and cystic abnormalities, US can often distinguish benign and malignant solid nodules. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) also is useful in assessing the extent of disease within the breast, particularly in women with dense breasts. MRI may be a more sensitive screening tool in women at elevated breast cancer risk. Newer techniques based on the metabolic activity of breast tumors also have been developed. One such technique is scintimammography, which uses radiolabeled tracers to detect breast malignancies. Positron emission tomography (PET), which relies on the high metabolic rate of tumors, also has been described as a method to evaluate breast disease. Other techniques, such as optical tomography and thermography, rely on angiogenesis and generated heat to identify cancers. These and other tools may help to improve both the sensitivity and specificity of cancer detection. Ideally, this improved detection results in improved outcomes in those who have breast cancer and avoidance of unnecessary procedures in those who do not.

PMID: 16525954 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

With the advent of improved digital imaging and image manipulation techniques, breast thermography is enjoying a new resurgence of interest as a screening tool.  What will be interesting to see is if thermography is accepted in this country as a primary screening tool or as an adjunct to other imaging modalities such as mammography, MRI and ultrasound. 

_____________
Regards,
MillCreek
Snohomish County, WA  USA


Quote from: Angel Eyes on August 09, 2018, 01:56:15 AM
You are one lousy risk manager.

Gewehr98

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 11,010
  • Yee-haa!
    • Neural Misfires (Blog)
Re: Interesting... Gov't and cancer?
« Reply #23 on: November 17, 2009, 12:14:51 AM »
Quote
I'm amazed we've made it this far without G98 reminding us this is an all-ages forum.   shocked

Trust me, I've been watching the thread.

All appears civil and above-board on this end.

Unless you see something different...
"Bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round...

http://neuralmisfires.blogspot.com

"Never squat with your spurs on!"

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,483
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: Interesting... Gov't and cancer?
« Reply #24 on: November 17, 2009, 12:23:56 AM »
Trust me, I've been watching the thread.

All appears civil and above-board on this end.

Unless you see something different...

No, I just expected more jokes. 
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife