Extra screening for women with dense breasts may not be necessary: study

nydailynews ^

[BenLurkin]

In some states, healthcare providers must tell women if they have dense breasts. Those women sometimes then go on to have additional screenings, such as ultrasound scans or magnetic resonance imaging (MRIs).

But in the new study, the researchers found that not all women with dense breasts have a high enough risk for breast cancer after a normal mammogram to justify having more screening tests.

Instead, they found that two specific groups of women with dense breasts were likely to benefit from extra screening, taking into account their risk for breast cancer in the next five years as calculated using an online tool called the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) score (bit.ly/1PuxYZF).

The first group consists of women with extremely dense breasts and a BCSC-calculated five-year breast cancer risk of 1.67 percent or greater.

The second group consists of women with heterogeneously dense breasts and a BCSC-calculated five-year risk of 2.50 percent or greater.

Women in these specific groups, which represent about a quarter of women with dense breasts, should discuss whether extra screening may be appropriate in addition to a mammogram every two years as recommended for women are 50 to 74, the authors write.

[Old Sarge]

NO, no, no, it’s too easy...

[US Navy Vet]

So what “BOOB” came up w/ this “Study”?

[no-to-illegals]

There’s a joke in that bra somewhere?

[Mr. K]

I’ll do it!

[no-to-illegals]

so many doctors are going to be suicidal on this news ...

[Darksheare]

“Wait, wut?”

[Old Sarge]

We can milk it for all it’s worth - kind of a tet-a-teat...

[Old Sarge]

“MAN-a-Gram!”

[no-to-illegals]

Made for H00Ts and H00TERS?

[Personal Responsibility]

“...have a high enough risk for breast cancer after a normal mammogram to justify having more screening tests.”

Justify to whom?

This is an example of slanted journalism. Justified - unless they’ve changed the definition - that means one person / group is explaining to another why something should / should not be done. The journalist has made clear one side of the debate - the “explainers” stating their case.

However, the journalist has not said TO WHOM they are making that case. We are left to assume they are making their case to either an insurance company (private insurance) or to the government (via Obamacare).

All that’s left really is for us to infer WHY the author didn’t mention either of those entities. Any takers?

[no-to-illegals]

the author was paid to write this by the Health Secretary at the Federal level?

[dfwgator]

I’m just going to sit back and enjoy this thread.

[Personal Responsibility]

I was going to go with “the author supports Obamacare and is priming the pump to get us used to this kind of thinking”. Either way works though.

[stanne]

Nothing is as funny as breast cancer

I guess...

[Manic_Episode]

TTIWWP

[fatnotlazy]

I noticed that ever since Obamacare came along, a number of tests have suddenly become unnecessary. I'm suspicious as to whether this is the result of better science or an effort to save money for the insurance companies and/or Medicaid.

Or maybe a way to kill off certain age groups or classes of undesirables.

[Darksheare]

Yikes.

[EinNYC]

[Darksheare]

It is stealth eugenics.
The probable idea behind it is this: Reduce the number of genetically predisposed to cancer people by removing tests as being unnecessary.
Then remove treatments.
Then give a push ever so slightly towards assisted suicide.
Then eventually outright forcing people to be euthanized due to “increased risk to the population”.

Eugenics never went away, it just got real quiet and tried another tack.