Susan Love Defending New Guidelines

mb2226

When I first read that Dr. Susan Love opposed mammograms on the basis of radiation exposure all I could think was: WHAT?  Once you're diagnosed with breast cancer, you're promptly blasted with tons more radiation than you'd ever get in a dozen lifetimes of mammograms. So -- its OK to be blasted with radiation when you're finally diagnosed at 50 but not OK to get teeny weeny amounts earlier? I don't get how this minimal exposure is unfair to women when lots more exposure is routine for breast cancer patients (who are also women,by the way).  We all know that radiation stinks as a treatment but for now at least it is one that works. So using radiation exposure as a reason to cut out annual mammograms made no sense to me at all. And, it's unlikely that mammograms cause breast cancer as there are tons of women diagnosed with bc who never had mammograms.

-angel-

MarieKelly, I completely agree with everything you said!  I personally don't agree with the new recommendations but I do believe we have a problem with overtreating! 

Bono, Definitely.  I also have a 10 year old daughter as well as a 4 year old and you can bet I will be encouraging them.  Funny, my onc said they would need to be screened 10 years younger than the age that I was dx'd .. which would mean they should be screened starting at 32!  Of course I was hoping by the time they are that age that maybe there'd be a cure or much better diagnostic tools at least.

Yasmin, can you explain this to me?  "..  now that the scientific community understands tumors better, and has them classified in "tumor families," which is a more significant indicator of long-term survival than tumor grades, as previously done."   I didn't know that tumor grades were not so significant anymore?  Being grade 3 that has been my one little nagging concern about not doing chemo!

yasminv1

I was diagnosed at age 31 with no family history and tested negative for the BRCA gene. I eat healthy, I am a gym nut and weighed only 98 pounds. BC should not have gotten me, right? WRONG!! It doesn't discriminate. I found a lump in December 2008 during a self exam (that I have to say was not routine for me) and finally went to my OBGYN in end of March 2009 to have it checked. Although I knew it could be cancer I was not concerned because I thought my chance was very slim. I was only 30 years old and BC was not in my family.  Imagine my surprise when I was diagnosed with extensive DCIS and multi tumor IDC...one tumor being rare. I would have died in the coming years if I had not been taught to do Self Breast Exams.

My fear with these new guidelines is that young women like me will feel they don't have to worry about BC until age 50 and the guidelines about not teaching SBE are ridiculous. We have fought so hard to have younger women and the medical community take BC in young women seriously. I fear this will be a step back for this hard fought fight.

MarieKelly

BLAH -

Regarding your question to Yasmin regarding tumor grade significance -

They've been doing molecular sub-typing of breast cancer in which they have idenitifed different distinct types of BC based on gene expression analysis which enable prognostic prediction much better than the standard grading system. The subtypes are Luminal A, Luminal B, HER2, Basal and I think there's a newer one identified called "claudin-low" - but I haven't read too much yet about the last one.  Looks of good reading out there on this subject, so just GOOGLE any of those subtype terms and you'll be reading for many, many hours!

Lovegolf

i did not find her book helpful. She is very dismissive of DCIS.  I guess those of us with it must wait for it become invasive to "count" with her. If I had waited 4 year until 50 how much more cancer would there have been..invasive? nodes involved?  Chemo? radiation? With the realization she has a business interest in the decision I would not follow her words/

-angel-

Yasmin, thanks, I do hear you!  All this BC awareness and early detection shoved down everyone's throats and now we should just forget about it until we're older?!  This site is proof positive how young BC hits and it's much younger than it used to be!

Marie Kelly,  oh my gosh, don't get me started!  I was up all night last night and must sleep tonight (weekend soccer tournament!).  Thank you for the information, I will enjoy reading up on it!

2GIRLSII

Dr. Love, since when does America strive to be like other countries?? Because some other countries are behind on something does not mean we should take a giant step backwards so that we can be in step with them.

iodine

CMB: re: pap tests: yep, I saw that today.  Guess we've not heard of it because we don't all know women with that cancer, nor do cervical cancer patients/families do walks and runs for awarness.

Or wonder if they don't have as many dying each year>  I am just no sure.

Agree that ductal lavage has been around for a while.  The world of bc treatment has changed so dramatically in the last 20 years that it makes one's head spin.  I have cared for Radical mast.--now we are talking about removing chest, underarm muscles, all nodes and going very deep to the chest wall.  Women Needed to be in the hospital for at least a week and Reach to Recovery was a boon and So helpful in teaching and listening---because women did Not discuss mast. until after Betty Ford ( bless the lady for all she's brought to light).  Talk about dark ages, yep, I was there in the thick of things, fighting for lumpectomy with surgeons taught that to remove less tissue/muscle was to sentence their patient to certain death from bc. 

Why, one could only get chemo (the mysterious concoctions) from Majjor medical centers. And mant stayed in the hospital for the IV and after.

The relief of women my age to have something as simple as a mammo, tammox, and know that there were possibilites for not dying in less than 5 years was the most wonderful feeling!

I bellieve that's the reason we are as protective of the present screening --- lives have begun to be saved in such large numbers ( to us) and women are Living with bc now, it's not the death sentence it once was.  When advising newbies, our first remarks were usually: it's not your mother's bc any longer---ie, you will likely not die from this diagnosis,.  Of course, absolutely none of us will actually know, for a few years, except to die of something else before bc gets us.  LOL

Sorry this is so long. just needed to say: I chose no chemo and no rads,, got a mast, to avoid rads and declined chemo due to percentage of possible helping being so low.  Guess I am still approving of the screening, even tho I didn't start till 50 due to my daughter's urging and was dx'd 1.9cm at 59.  Guess I would miss that with new guidelines.

If we can find newer and better screening---oh, please do!  But don't throw out what we have Until that is found and available.

2GIRLSII

I have read some of Dr. Love's response to posts on the her Huffington Post article..and I apologize to any of her fans...but she is not doing a very good job of defending her point....she is coming across as a bit of a nut job honeslty. What's wrong with her?? Where is the documentation of all this damage done by mammo's? Should we no long get dental xrasy? Come on. Also, what is the reasoning on telling girls and women not to do self breast exams?? I am not hearing any good arguments. Is Dr. Love much of a scientist? I thought we were a country moving towards preventive care and we will be facing more and more advanced stage BC cases. She has to know that. Is she on drugs???

lewing

2GirlsII, I have to respond to your statement that "we will be facing more and more advanced stage BC cases."  One of the reasons there's skepticism about mammography as a screening tool in younger women is that more widespread screening DOESN'T seem to have led to a decrease in the incidence of advanced breast cancer.  It's led to a lot more stage 0 and stage I diagnoses, which intuitively you'd think would lead to fewer stage 3's and 4's down the road, but that doesn't seem to have happened.

Maybe we need more time to see the effect (routine screening for women in their 40s is relatively new), but it's worth pondering.   

Linda

TenderIsOurMight

For a breast screening tool to be "efficient" in early disease pickup of breast cancer it must:

a. Be sensitive and specific (pick up breast cancer, and turns out to indeed be breast cancer).

b. Be widely available and utilized

c. Be safe

d. Be low cost

The death rate from breast cancer in the US (sorry, understand our situation best so using it as an example) has indeed dropped slightly over the last two decades but not enough or a lot.

 To drop the death rate from breast cancer, it seems to me you have to pick up those "aggressive" breast cancers very early. These high grade, high Ki67, proliferative cancers sometimes are described as "coming up over night" or "grew from a pea to a walnut over several weeks". 

Sticking strictly to the "screening for bc" issue, it's these aggressive bc in addition to the slow growers any screening technique wants to visualize. Sometimes the aggressive cancers "pop up" between the time of the past mammogram and the new diagnostic mammogram and ultrasound done for the lump which confirms the bc. Most studies show that aggressive breast cancers are often found in younger patients (which we here confirm).

Mammograms done in the young patient are hampered often by the natural breast's density. This causes a white out effect on the mammogram and may mask early lesions. It's precisely these small aggressive lesions in women which must be found on a screening tool to maximize lower stage. Interval lesions (lesions arising between last mammogram and now) had to start somewhere, be some size (e.g.,3 mm or such), possibly show some background reaction on a test (altered architecture, complex cyst part solid, microcalcifications) which better screening tools may detect.

The mammogram remains the gold standard for screening for breast cancer- for now. Quickly on it's heels though is the breast MRI. We all know about it's false positives and the cry for unneeded biopsy. We're declined MRI because of cost, and lack of studies on early disease at this point.

Breast MRI's take breast imaging to a new level. To me, it makes the mammogram look like a technically somewhat archaic but useful tool. When and if our medical researchers and physicians and most importantly our biomedical engineers can further refine breast MRI's technically, to see microcalcifications, to further clarify the activity of a breast lesion (who knows, maybe with a contrast specific for ER/PR as well as a antibody known to be present in the majority of triple negative bc's or an antibody contrast to protein Ki67 if this might be developable), a new era in breast screening impacting early detection in the masses and resulting in a decline in the death rate from breast cancer may occur.

This doesn't have to be wishful thinking in America or elsewhere. If it is decided to a) better engineer breast MRI's b) train technicians on their accurate performance c) limit inter and intra-variability on reading by trained radiologists and give them malpractice relief and d) mandate lower cost of the MRI, well then our joint goal of reduction in breast cancer mortality might be reached.

We don't hear much discussion even in this stirred debate about alternatives to mammograms because it's so cheap and widely available. Perhaps it's time to at least bring forth debate and consideration of a comprehensive screening technique aside from mammography. What we save in chagrin as we see our loved ones suffer with late state disease, as well as the legitimate costs of helping them, might push/incite well done investigation on a mass scale of mammogram alternatives. To date, imho, the breast MRI at least puts us in the right ball park for it's consideration.

My best to everyone this morning,

Tender

gpawelski

The news about mammograms is not brand new information based on one study that just came out. The recommendations that the Preventive Services Task Force (PSTF) released is based on research that experts have known about for some time.

Dr. Herman Kattlove, a retired medical oncologist did research on mammograms in the early 1990's. For seven years, until his retirement in 2006, Kattlove had served as a medical editor for the American Cancer Society where he had helped develop much of the information about specific cancers that is posted on the society's website.

On his own personal cancer blog, Kattlove wrote, "Many years ago, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) tried to convince us all to not screen women younger than 50 and were given such a tongue lashing by Congress that they went home, licking their wounds, and withdrew their recommendation."

Of course, Congress should not have become involved in telling the NCI what information it should make available to the public. Few Congressmen are either M.D.s or scientists trained to analyze and critique medical research. But this illustrates just how politically charged the question of diagnostic testing has become, especially when companies like GE that are making large profits on the sale of diagnostic testing equipment, and their lobbyists are helping to finance Congressional campaigns.

For decades doctors have urged patients to undergo mammograms because they sincerely believed that mammograms saved many lives. They, too, were not receiving all of the information they needed about the risks. Powerful forces stood in the way of widespread dissemination while millions of dollars were poured into the Mammogram campaign.

Kattlove goes on to say, "Likewise, the American Cancer Society also avoids looking clearly at the data and continues to recommend screening for younger women. And the morning's paper carried lots of outrage from breast cancer specialists and other docs who are committed to screening younger women.

Some of the reasons for this are political and financial. The ACS doesn't want to enrage its donor base, Congress didn't want to upset constituents and breast cancer specialists have faith in the procedure. I'm sure all the pink breast cancer organizations are also organizing their protest.

Why this emotion and outrage? I think because we feel helpless when we see women die of breast cancer, sometimes while still young. Indeed, deaths in these young women hit us hard. So we want to do something and our only tool is mammography.

"But mammography is not the answer for these women." As Kattlove points out in his post, when young women die of breast cancer they are usually killed by very fast-growing aggressive cancers that grow too quickly to be caught by early detection. The tumors crop up, and spread in between annual mammograms. Kattlove continues: "The unfortunate side effect of this delusion [that screening and early detection is the answer] is that we avoid the hard choices like healthy life styles and avoiding cancer-causing drugs such as hormone-replacement treatment.

I would add that while I applaud the PSTF for bringing this research to our attention, I wish that they had done this two or three years ago. From a political point of view, the timing is unfortunate because inevitably, those who oppose health care reform will exploit this report to suggest that, under reform, the Government will use "comparative effectiveness research" to deny necessary care-and as a result patients will die.

In fact, health care reformers, the government and Medicare understand that, after thirty years of telling women that they must have annual mammograms, we cannot turn on a dime and expect them to suddenly absorb the information that for most average-risk women under 50, mammograms pose more risks than benefits.

No one is going to stop covering mammograms. But responsible physicians will begin giving patients more information about what the medical research shows, including the fact that for most women, the danger of undergoing unnecessary radiation, or an unneeded mastectomy or lumpectomy, far exceeds the likelihood that a mammogram will save their lives.

Moreover, it is important to remember that the "comparative effectiveness information" that the government plans to generate will serve to create guidelines-not "rules"-for doctors. In the U.K., doctors use such guidelines about 88 percent of the time, which seems appropriate, giving how much variation there can be in individual cases.

Finally, under reform it is extremely unlikely that insurers (including the public plan) will stop covering treatments and tests (including PSA tests), that have been in use for a long time. More likely, they will lift co-pays and lower reimbursements for procedures that are less effective, while lowering co-pays and lifting reimbursements for procedures that the medical evidence shows are more effective.

In this case, unfortunately, we don't yet have a good alternative to mammograms, a further reason why insurers will not suddenly stop covering the tests.

http://kattlovecancerblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/new-mammography-guidelines-got-it-right.html

cp418

I'm getting more frustrated hearing about the HRT issue which in my opinion affects older women who are post-menopause, NOT YOUNGER women ages UNDER 50. The recent decline in breast cancer has been attributed to the drop in use of HRT.  That is a huge benefit for OLDER women to be aware and make the right choice for them if they choose to use it. However, how does the HRT use affect younger women in terms of decreased cancer rates?  It doesn't affect us because we are NOT in that sub-group of risk patients.  It is YOUNGER women who took oral contraceptives which in my opinion is just as risky as HRT.  Particularly if we took it long term or in our 40's.  Instead many of us YOUNGER women (70% with NO family history) are considered the average or low risk patients.  But we are the ones being diagnosed with breast cancer and cauhgt by surprise without the family history. 

These screening procedures should be up to the individual patient and their doctor. 

ginamaria

I read Dr Love's book when I was diagnosed 10 years ago.  I thought it was wonderful as a text book, she explained everything in a way most drs do not have the time to.  That being said, I felt that she sounded as if treatments(especially mx) were some kind of male conspiracy against women. I actually felt GUILTY for chosing to have a mx-till I decided that MY opinion mattered more than hers. 

Colette37

If this health care bill comes to be reality, then all young women and our daughters, sisters nieces are in trouble.

Her defending this idiotic standard also means she supports women not doing BSE or women having further diagnoses in the event a lump is found.  I can understand where she would sound like a nut case...because this is how many breast cancers are found if they are not found with the Mammogram.

gk2bc0

I'm with Iza on this! couldn't have said it better myself.  If you aren't already in the Army of Women, what are you waiting for? be part of the solution...research is key in this fight.

Janets1

I think it is very important that we women who have had our regular mammogram screenings since the age of 40 DO NOT BLAME OURSELVES for getting cancer! This is an age-old thought process that keeps women in a second-class, submissive role in society. While we don't really know for sure about the degree of radiation that could have been harmful, there will be plenty of debate for years to come and we must remain focused on making sure that future generations will have more information. But I see a trend developing that we caused our own cancers by doing what the medical establishment told us to do and not questioning it more. In addition, telling women that self-exams and mammograms cause us to become overly concerned and frightened is yet another way of saying that we are immature or hysterics. I believe that Dr. Love and others need to make sure that women still remain proactive about their health and use whatever tools/means are necessary to promote breast health. As I see it, breast cancer and feminism are very closely connected as we stand up for our health and our ability to convince some independent task force that 3% of women are worth saving.....and that we can handle doubt, worry and concern.

gpawelski

The other side of the coin is the radiation risk imposed by mammography. It is not simply of negligible value in younger women, but may have a net harm effect, if women who have mammograms at age 40 start having higher rates of cancer in irradiated breasts 25 or 35 years later.

The recommendation not to begin mammography until age 50 has to do with medical issues, more than cost effectiveness issues. Mammography is not harmless. You are subjecting women to annual doses of ionizing radiation to the breasts, with some unavoidable scatter to chest wall and lungs. We do not know how many women who are irradiated by mammography in their 40s will develop radiation-induced breast cancer (or even lung cancer) in their 60s, 70s, and 80s.

The other problem is that women in their 40s tend to have very dense breasts, making it more difficult to get an accurate exam. These women often are called back for additional views, giving them even more radiation. There are more false positives, leading to breast biopsies and sometimes unnecessary lumpectomies, in cases where the biopsies are technically suboptimal.

In contrast, in older women, their breasts are less dense, making the examination more accurate, with fewer false positives, and there are fewer years of remaining life to develop a radiation-induced malignancy.

The fact is that we have no truly long term follow up studies to determine very long term risks of carcinogenesis from radiation exposure in mammography.

1. J Radiol Prot. 2009 Jun;29(2A):A123-32. Epub 2009 May 19.

Mammography-oncogenecity at low doses.

Heyes GJ, Mill AJ, Charles MW.

Department of Medical Physics, University Hospital Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham B15 2TH, UK.

Controversy exists regarding the biological effectiveness of low energy x-rays used for mammography breast screening. Recent radiobiology studies have provided compelling evidence that these low energy x-rays may be 4.42 +/- 2.02 times more effective in causing mutational damage than higher energy x-rays.

The risk/benefit analysis, however, implies the need for caution for women screened under the age of 50, and particularly for those with a family history (and therefore a likely genetic susceptibility) of breast cancer. In vitro radiobiological data are generally acquired at high doses, and there are different extrapolation mechanisms to the low doses seen clinically. Recent low dose in vitro data have indicated a potential suppressive effect at very low dose rates and doses. Whilst mammography is a low dose exposure, it is not a low dose rate examination, and protraction of dose should not be confused with fractionation. Although there is potential for a suppressive effect at low doses, recent epidemiological data, and several international radiation riskassessments, continue to promote the linear no-threshold (LNT) model.  

gpawelski

According to the Atlantic's John Crewdson, the only American reporter at the Stockholm news conference in 2002, on The Lancet publication of the Swedish meta-analysis, analyzing and updating the half-dozen Swedish mammography studies that told us nearly all of what we knew about the value of mammography, last month, Dr. Otis Brawley, the cancer society's chief medical officer, was quoted in the New York Time admitting "that American medicine has overpromised when it comes to screening. The advantages to screening have been exaggerated."

Crewdson wasn't surprised by Brawley's statement, since he had expressed the same view to him when they met at a cancer symposium in Milan in 2003.

Following the task force report's release, however, Brawley appeared to change direction, telling the Times that the cancer society had concluded that the benefits of annual mammograms beginning at 40 "outweighed the risks" and that the ACS was sticking by its earlier advice. One of Brawley's colleagues said, "He's trying to save his job. He was broiled at home for the interview in which he said that the medical establishment was 'overselling' screening."

Dr. Donald Berry, head of biostatistics at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, points out that if the Swedish update is read carefully, the benefit for women 40-50 is really only 9 percent, which is not statistically significant, meaning it could represent the play of chance and not a real advantage. What Brawley failed to mention is that the numbers the news media are flinging around are the relative benefit. Utterly obscured is the number that really matters, the absolute benefit.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200911u/mammograms

jancie

gpawelski - what answers do you have for the woman who was diagnosed with BC at her very first mammogram test.  Obviously radiation from the mammogram didn't cause it.

Colette37

gpawelski...if it was about the radiation that is received, that doesn't explain why no SBE any longer?  Knowing changes within your breast is how most breast cancers are caught.

Both of these changes (lets call them what they are..since the Senate bill proves that they are NOT recommendations at all) will kill many women between the two and has set back all advances in women's health care to stop breast cancer.

Also, why just the copy and pasting from articles?

RunswithScissors

*******

gpawleski wrote: The fact is that we have no truly long term follow up studies to determine very long term risks of carcinogenesis from radiation exposure in mammography.... Controversy exists regarding the biological effectiveness of low energy x-rays used for mammography breast screening. Recent radiobiology studies have provided compelling evidence that these low energy x-rays may be 4.42 +/- 2.02 times more effective in causing mutational damage than higher energy x-rays.

********

So all this time they've been assuring women the technology is "safe" - based on no evidence? Call me picky, but I have a problem with that. 

I noticed several on the thread brought up Susan's Loves potential coflict of interest because of her "pap" research.  Yet they don't mention the conflict of radiologists pounding the drum for more mammos.   

Jancie- I don't understand your question - nobody was saying that  mammos cause ALL cancers. 

Colette- I appreciate it when folks post snips from articles I may have missed. gpawelski's post responded  to earlier, inaccurate comments. Why do we care how someone chooses to bring pertinent info to the discussion?  

Anonymous

Bottom line is - If someone creates a totally safe, reasonably priced, breast cancer screening device that is proven effective and recognized by insurance companies, then they would have the right to address the mammo issue.

It's simple...I learned this early on in the business world: if you're going to suggest change/reform, you better have a strong, proof positive alternative, or keep your mouth shut.

IMO - Dr. Susan Love - Commander in Grief - Army of Women - from what I've read in the past few days, she has let her troops down.

seizetheday

Laura, I couldn't agree more.  Susan Love has let us down and shown her over the top colors.  She is not the only game in town.  Someone else can organize the "troops" for research.  I am not refusing to help research I am refusing to help Susan Love.  I hope Avon feels the pressure and separates from Love.  If they don't I hope the Avon walks in the fall are empty. Other organizations can take their place.  It is business and at least for the moment we still live in a free country.

The guidelines went overboard.  No BSE is just silly and the other things were premature.  For all those defending these guidelines feel free to take the risk.  No one forced you to get a mammogram or feel your breast.  The guidelines DO influence insurance companies.  You are eventually taking away the right to exam in those who wish to exam.  I was living in la la land also thinking I am not at risk.  But oops, I had a lump at 44.  I had a bilateral mastectomy (NO regrets) so these guidelines don't influence me.  Why should I care?  Because I want to protect womankind from being in la la land like I was. 

We need a new leader of the research movement. 

Anonymous

sieze t d - Maybe the new leader could be Dr. Marisa Weiss! What do you think?

Beach

I must admit prior to my blurb that I am not fully informed on all that has transpired over the last week since the task force released their recommendations, but wanted to put my two cents in.  In my mind they're not concentrating on the right issues.  Early screening doesn't always lead to early detection.  Instead of focusing on a certain age group, I think the task force should have concentrated on a more important issue:  a need for better, more accurate screening modalities introduced into routine screening..........non-invasive cancer (ie. DCIS) doesn't grow overnight, it can take years.........5 years of yearly mammos since I turned 40, (including this past January), didn't detect mine and because of this, the cancer broke out of the duct and became invasive at some point.  I felt a lump, which actually turned out to be a cyst, but prior to knowing this, forced an unltrasound to be done....finally!!  This led to the discovery in Feb 09 of an invasive tumor actually hiding behind the cyst....so in my case, self-examination and persistence were key!  The powers up above are saying that too many routine mammos are leading to false positives which puts undo stress on the person, but what they're not talking about are the amount of "false negatives" which lull people into a false sense of security.....this is what makes me even angrier!!  Detection also depends on a radiologist's point of view.....they're the ones analyzing the data and making the decisions, so if they're inexperienced or just having a bad day, those of us with really dense breasts could go undiagnosed until the next mammo or until a side effect rears it's ugly head.  I feel this is what happened to me back in Apr. 2008, when I had an issue in the same breast but was told by the radiologist that "it's only a cyst....what are you so worried about?".  The general public has no clue because very few vocal groups or media people are focusing on these aspects, so unfortunately they won't be aware until they get cancer themselves.  Just my humble opinion, but this is where the bulk of my anger lies.......even still!! 

Back in Oct., I attended a public forum here in Toronto.  It was called "It's About Time", and was put on by the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation.  Focus was on the need to change current Canadian policy, (which ironically would put it more in line with the US), by lowering the age from 50 to 40 for starting routine mammos, but more importantly, it was also about whether or not more accurate screening modalities should be introduced into routine screening.  This forum preceded a 2-day scientific conference on these topics, and our real-time votes were being presented to the panel.  I am not aware of the outcome yet.  Anyway, talk about a flip-flop......interestingly enough, one of the guest speakers at the public forum was from Atlanta, GA......Dr. Robert Smith, Director of Cancer Screening, Cancer Control Science Dept, American Cancer Society.  Perhaps the US task force should have interviewed him. 

shadow2356

As far as the radiation from mammograms, digital mammograms give less radiation then a cross country flight. No one is telling us not to fly. If you do a round trip cross country flight once a year that is twice the radiation then a yearly digital mammogram.

Anonymous

I think someone commented that they would be dead now if they had followed the new guidelines - me too.  Many women now will follow these new guidelines and never live to see their children grow up.

elimar86861

Can you tell me the reference where Susan Love does not support SBE?  On Good Morning America, although she spoke in favor of the new guidelines for mammo, she closed with telling women to keep doing the SBE.  So is she in favor of ALL the new recommendations now, or are the previous comments making an assumption about her view on SBE?  I'm just asking.

(Please don't jump me in the wrong assumption that I am aligned with her stance.  I remember that KISS wrote a song about her in the 70s.  I'm not a KISS fan either.)

jader

Here's what Susan Love says on her site:

I had nothing to do with formulating these guidelines but if you look back at what I have written over the years, it is consistent with what I am saying today: mammography is not a good tool for finding breast cancer in younger women and we need to put our efforts to finding something better. I try to do just that and have been involved in the development of ductal lavage, which washes out the milk ducts and collects cells. While we hoped it might be a good early test it has not been found to be as accurate as we had hoped and is now used only as a research tool. At the Foundation, we continue to both fund and do research to find something that will work better than mammography, especially in young women at risk of getting breast cancer......I hear your anger. I'm angry too. But not for the same reason. I'm angry because we've oversold the benefits of mammography to the extent that there is no longer room to look objectively at the evidence. I am angry that we still don't know what causes breast cancer and how to prevent it. I started the Army of Women to channel that anger into positive action. I ask that you also channel your anger and frustration into helping us keep breast cancer from going on to another generation! We can do it. We can go beyond finding cancers that are already there to ending this disease all together. But we can't let ourselves be distracted from the goal. We can agree to disagree about mammography screening guidelines, but we can not let up the pressure and efforts to stop breast cancer once and for all!