Posted on 08/19/2013 4:04:03 AM PDT by themedguru
Was your PSA test slightly high, your Pap smear “not quite right”, your mammogram funny? Did your CT scan detect a teeny weenie nodule and your doctor schedule a biopsy? Cancer!! That’s what they say! You end up with the painful treatment and are proclaimed a “cancer survivor”. But was it cancer?
Early detection of cancer
Since ages, doctors say, that early detection leads to treatment in time, as the cancer spread will be slowed with timely diagnosis. Whether it was the prostrate, lung, breast or thyroid , that’s what the theory stated. The question is- was the cancer actually life threatening in the first place?
Seeing the large number of “early” detected cancer cases Peter Carroll, the chairman of the department of urology at the University of California at San Francisco and a specialist in prostate cancer says “We’ll all be cancer survivors if we keep going at the rate that we’re going.”
The focus towards early detection and early traumatic cancer treatments may actually be pulling the doctors attention away from the fast growing fatal tumors.
Cancer over diagnosis
People do feel that by going through frequent tests and screening procedures they can hold death at bay. Laura J. Esserman (a surgeon and breast-cancer specialist), Ian M. Thompson Jr. (a urologist) and Brian Reid (a specialist in esophageal cancer) argue “Physicians, patients, and the general public must recognize that over diagnosis is common and occurs more frequently with cancer screening.”
They demand that “cancer should be attributed to only those situations that are actually life threatening if not treated in time.
Have you noticed that the rate of cancer survivors is rising because of the detection of the cancers that are non-threatening? So why is it done? The physicians feel that rather than ignore a case that can turn fatal it is better to treat it in time.
Misdirection in research
Esserman, director of the Carol Franc Buck Breast Care Center at UCSF issues a warning signal “the cancers that grow and spread very quickly are not the ones that you can catch in time with screening.”She states that early detection can lead to misdirection in research procedures and the funding allotted for it.
Talking about screening she insisted “We have to come up with better treatments, we have to figure out who’s really at risk for those and figure out how to prevent them,” she says. “We’re not going to fix it with screening.”
We have another example of ductal carcinoma, a type of breast cancer. In this case the walls of the milk ducts show a cell lining that is affected by cancer but this disease has not gone deep into the breast tissue. So may be the cancer survivors went through the painful and traumatic “breast removal” treatment in vain.
Colin Wells, a radiologist at the University of California at Los Angeles specializing in breast imaging gave his verdict regarding this “Since we really don’t know the true natural history of DCIS we do not know if DCIS always progresses to invasive cancer or not.”
As a large number of people are roped in “active surveillance,” through biopsies, regular PSA tests, and imaging . Experts point out that one in three actually needs treatment within 5-10 years.
are they joking. Did they throw out all the pre 1970 medical books that detailed findings and photographed them?
and so begins the conditioning of citizens that under obamacare, healthcare costs will be controlled by decreeing that “teeny tiny” cancers should not be treated because it costs the govt-payer too much of its money
and besides citizen, you don’t want to put yourself or your family through that “brutal” treatment for a teeny tiny tumor, do you?
Wait and see if it becomes stage 3 or 4!
I would think that it’s better to be not sure but treat anyway than to decide, “Nah” and let it metastasize...
Maybe it is true that many are now claiming to be cured from cancer.
I know that it is true that a helluva lot of people are dying from it too.
There isn’t a week that goes by that I don’t hear of a friend or acquaintance having acquired it.
This sounds to me a little like they are lining us up for Obamacare and not bothering to treat what they call cancer that isn’t growing fast enough.
And, judging by the inept writing, I’d guess Obama farmed out this disinformation to Sasha.
Exactly my first thoughts on reading this clap trap.
Women also need better PAINLESS ways to detect cancer. Many of us put off mamos because it is like you men getting kicked in the family jewels pain wise. Mamos are only 97% accurate and have tons of false positives. I have a friend who goes through this crap every year with the false positive scares.
What is wrong with doing a 100% ACCURATE MRI which is painless?
DIL goes for needle biopsy this morning, patient in nursing home where she is a NA kicked her in the chest last week. The tiny knot exploded, it is now a 4 in mass, white, and that is NOT GOOD. I am hoping is is mostly hemotoma fluid.
As someone that was potentially “over-diagnosed” I understand this issue.
Am I a “survivor” that was fortunate enough to have halted a deadly disease early? Or, would I have lived another 30 years without ill effects?
In my case, I’ll take the treatments over the roll of the dice. I would prefer that it not be termed “CANCER” for many reasons, not the least of which will be my term life renewal.
Obamacare can save a lot of money if they quit testing and treating old white guys for prostate cancer.
This year’s medicare hand book of changes puts PSA’s at every 2 years once 0’care starts, other test are also put off for 2 years. Some doctor discretion is allowed, but I bet it is not much.
Well the idiot did remove the one of the best working stage 4 drugs as being TO EXPENSIVE. What price has he put on a average citizens life, while he and congress have lifetime PLATINUM healthcare vs our RATIONED healthcare?
And McCan LEAVE THE MILITARY HEALTH CARE THE HECK ALONG, GUT YOUR OWN FIRST!
Gail: Just my 0.02....first the problem with MRI routinely for breast cancer detection is simply COST and availability. insurance companies won’t reimburse for this on routine basis. Mammo’s cost less than 100.00 ... MRI’s probably close to 10 X that cost.
Second, given you DIL history of a trauma to the area followed by an expanding mass, likely could be evaluated by ultrasound and observation for a period of time... of course if it was a solid mass by ultrasound and didn’t look like hematoma or fluid filled biopsy isn’t too invasive and quite a few doctors and patients want to do a biopsy based on anxiety more than reason.. Wishing her the best possible result.
Under USPHTF current statements they have determined that women should not have routine breast mammogram screening prior to age 50... unfortunately a large percentage of breast cancers occur in younger ladies, but don’t let that stop the federates from enforcing their utopian health care upon us...as long as they exempt themselves and their families out of this mess !!
Another brother scared by the other brother's diagnosis went in for his exam. His PSA was in the normal range, but slightly higher than the year before. Because of other brother's diagnosis, they did a biopsy. His prostate was full of cancer already, yet PSA was still in normal range. You have to have this test done regularly and be alarmed if there is an increase. Younger brother caught it early before it spread, but they both had very aggressive cancers.
Another note, there is NO other cancer in our family history. It is crazy.
I once had a lump removed because ins would pay for that but not for an mri to see if it really needed to be removed
Man, I wish people would get it right: PROSTRATE means placing oneself in a prone position, PROSTATE is the gland being discussed in the article. No wonder the Democrats are winning!
I more concerned that stories like this are social conditioning to convince us that we don’t need testing or treatment.
Just another step down the road to death panels.
If there's doubt in anyone's mind, ask yourself if Zero and Congress will be postponing any screenings.
Bkmk
As the government becomes responisble for the cost of care, the government will use it's power to minimize those costs. It is as inevitable as the sunrise.
The problem is the government's interests are not the same as the patient's interests. So the government may well choose to minimize costs in a way that will lead to the individual patient's death. That is why any system that has costs borne by anybody other than the consumer is inherently flawed.
The cynical amongst us might say that the government has two problems. Problem One is that medical care is too expensive, so they need to shave costs on care. Problem Two is that extended lifespans have lead to long periods of life after the ages of Medicare and Social Security eligibility, which is bankrupting these programs. More people living into the 80s and 90s and even beyond means more unproductive mouths to feed (and care for). This is simply a function of life expectancy.
So the solution to minimize medical costs is ... Obamacare
And the solution to reduce life expectancy is ... Obamacare!
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.