Posted on 11/23/2012 1:31:04 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
About a third of all tumors discovered in routine mammography screenings are unlikely to result in illness, according to a new study that says 30 years of the breast cancer exams have resulted in the overdiagnosis of 1.3 million American women.
The report, published Thursday in the New England Journal of Medicine, argues that the increase in breast cancer survival rates over the last few decades is due mostly to improved therapies and not screenings, which are intended to flag tumors when they are small and most susceptible to treatment. Instead, the widespread use of mammograms now results in the overdiagnosis of breast cancer in roughly 70,000 patients each year, needlessly exposing those women to the cost and trauma of treatment, the authors wrote.
"Our study raises serious questions about the value of screening mammography," wrote Dr. H. Gilbert Welch, an epidemiology and biostatistics professor at Dartmouth College's Geisel School of Medicine. "It clarifies that the benefit of mortality reduction is probably smaller, and the harm of overdiagnosis probably larger, than has been previously recognized."
(Excerpt) Read more at touch.latimes.com ...
Well, OBVIOUSLY, Bill Clinton has had no input. He’d volunteer to do ALL the exams. . . personally (evil grin)
It’s better to have an encapsulated tumor/lump than to have it burst under the hefty pressure of a mammogram machine.
My mom and her mom were mammogram junkies and both ended up with mastectomies.
I’ve had maybe 3 in my whole life and do not intend to ever have another one.
Why would I want to constantly irradiate myself and increase my chances?
I’m with you. I think those damn machines can give people cancer. It’s like putting your tits through a washing machine wringer. Whomever invented it hates women. Can you imagine a man having to put his wiener in a machine and then having it flattened by crushing it, just to check for cancer? Neither can I. Whomever invented those machines is a sadist.
Medicine apparently needs some technical engineers who can design a machine or process that can diagnose the disease without causing temporary discomfort.
And better tasting castor oil.
By the way, any of you ladies ever get a PROSTATE exam? Having another man ram his finger into your hinder isn’t a joy ride, I can testify.
Actually, having their testicles crushed would be a more anatomically analogous example.
[yeah, guys...ponder that for a bit]
From what I’ve read, sonograms are just as effective and totally painless.
And lots cheaper.
But we can’t have that now, can we?
Doc needs a new Beemer.
This also means that about two thirds of all tumors discovered in routine mammography screenings are likely to result in illness. This seems to me to be a highly successful rate of diagnosis. I would pay for it any day.
I had my baseline mammogram done, and it was awful! Painful! I had my last 4 babies at home without any meds, I am no pansy, but having my boobs crushed... I had tears streaming down my face. It was pure torture.
I like the idea of sonography MUCH better.
Could you please provide a working link.
“About a third of all tumors discovered in routine mammography screenings are unlikely to result in illness,”
So two thirds do.
The idea that a tumor is ‘burst’ from a mammogram machine is a false idea. Breast cancer isn’t a cyst or cystlike in anyway.
While the effects of radiation are serious and limiting exposure to radiation something we should all do, in all regards, there is no evidence that a reasonable amount of mammograms cause an increase in breast cancer. I wouldn’t limit my time on a plane to avoid radiation, but I wouldn’t play with radion because it makes a good toy either.
That being said, I think we likely do get too many mammograms on a whole. I believe age should be a limit at the high end. If you make it to breast cancer free 80 years and you are doing monthly exams, I doubt the need for annual mam’s. Perhaps yearly is more than necessary for younger low risk woman too.
I think overall generalizations of Mammograms = Bad or Reducing Mammograms = Obamacare are both fallicies.
soon medical care will be a reward, not universal
Sounds like the system is seizing up.
Early detected cancers start people on the path for cancer treatments such as chemo, when the body may have self corrected on its own. I don’t find this information to be a war on women so much as a better understanding of when to intervene.
You *do* have the option of telling the tech that the machine is pressing too hard. I have had techs instruct me to tell them when to stop moving the top plate down. The correct amount of pressure should be uncomfortable, not painful. I was so much not in pain during my last mammography that I was asking the tech about the challenges of doing mammography on men (they can and do get breast cancer, and a mammogram helps to diagnose a suspicious lump).
The newer mammography machines use a lower dose of Xrays than ever; the last time I had a mammography, the tech did not even leave the room. They are also digital, making the image easier to read for the radiologist.
My grandmother had breast cancer, although we aren't sure whether that is what killed her. My mother in law had breast cancer, which, even after mastectomy, spread into her bones and lungs and most definitely did kill her.
From the article above, I see that 140,000 women every year are diagnosed with breast cancer through mammography. I question the 70,000 "overdiagnosis" estimate; the article didn't explain at all what that means (at least, not to my satisfaction as a medical researcher who needs all the technical details before rendering judgment). From a medical point of view, I do not see that a rate of false positives is really a reason to discontinue a method of screening. There is no medical screening procedure that is 100% accurate.
No, it ISN’T like having your testicles crushed. Not at all.
Testicles can, as Eddie Murphy once observed, merely be “grazed” and pain can be felt. They are much more sensitive than breasts.
My point, though, was that the coming restrictions on health care will come via these types of “studies” allowing the Obama Health Czar to stop life saving treatment.
I cannot remember the name of the breast cancer drug, but Obama’s FDA recently put the brakes on its supply....Fox did a few stories on it...but rationing IS coming via government edict, NOT market supply and demand.
Thank you. I was just about to post something similar.
That being said, I think we likely do get too many mammograms on a whole. I believe age should be a limit at the high end. If you make it to breast cancer free 80 years and you are doing monthly exams, I doubt the need for annual mam’s. Perhaps yearly is more than necessary for younger low risk woman too.
I agree. And I would add that aggressive treatment for breast cancer in a woman 80 years old or older may well kill her more quickly than the actual disease – there comes a point of diminishing returns.
Women under 40 or even 50 probably don’t need a yearly mammogram unless they have a maternal family history of breast cancer or are otherwise in a high risk group. But I will also add that this is always true. My ex-husband’s niece was in her mid 30’s when she was diagnosed. Unfortunately while a mammogram found a small lump, her doctor told her to wait and have another mammogram in a year to “see if it grew”. The tumor did grow and aggressively and by the time she finally went to another doctor, it was too late. After a double mastectomy and chemo, she died a few years later. The mammogram could have saved her life if her first doctor had not taken a “let’s wait and see” attitude.
I think overall generalizations of Mammograms = Bad or Reducing Mammograms = Obamacare are both fallicies.
If I understand correctly, preventative services including mammograms are covered and actually expanded under the “Affordable Care Act”. There was a few years ago a “recommendation” that women under 50 did not statistically benefit from mammograms and that there were too many false positives that led to unnecessary biopsies, but that did and does not mean that women under 50 are not covered for mammography. My insurance plan covers it for women under 50 and will continue to do so under Obama Care….at least for now.
Given the government pays for so many meds because the government pays for the medical treatment of so many people, they have become a large part of “the market.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.