Susan Love Defending New Guidelines

Colette said ~ If she had any kind of cancer...even DCIS...she should be able to remove them since it is easier (and cheaper) to pay for a bilateral, which verses the price of the chemo and radiation from the development of IDC.

Overtreatment is overtreatment.  Just because something is permissable, doesn't make it medically necessary, efficient or effective.  I have said NOTHING about what she SHOULD or SHOULD NOT have been able to do based on her BRCA status.  

I was merely replying to her (by her own admission) sarcastic comment that she was happy to be "overtreated" by responding to DCIS with a bilateral Mx.  It was an attempt to discredit the courageous stance of Dr. Love to question the number of medically unnecessary major surgeries in response to cancers that may have never grown large enough to sicken or kill their host.

Dr. Love has not questioned bilateral Mx's for women who were BRCA+ (as KittyCat is) or with a strong family history.  KittyCat's sarcasm about her own situation unfairly misrepresented Dr. Love's stance on this and I felt it warranted correction.

Nothing I said has to do with what insurance should and should not cover.

Yet again, you have taken a fairly innocuous conversation about one topic and manipulated it into another argument about the evils of government and insurance companies.

As I said to you in another thread, you will be arguing those aspects alone (or with others who wish to engage you).  I won't engage you on those topics.

Take Care!  Alaina

AnneW...Guidelines that have been based with the knowledge that between 3% and 9% of BC victims will die because of the changes.  THAT fact comes from the very people who made the changes.  Our government is supporting the USPSTF changes through who ever supports the Health care bill which gives more power to the USPSTF.

The above comments do not involve any emotion and are facts.  You can't change them, nor the fact that these changes will kill women.  You had breast cancer some time ago.  I am currently undergoing treatment, and I am living what happens when you do not detect breast cancer early and are not listened to.  These are facts and it also is a fact that if this health care bill goes through, that there will be MORE women going through what I am right now.  It ALSO is a fact that breast cancer rates are increasing in women under 50.

You are trying to make it out as if it is not political, but yet, that is exactly what it is.  Is your trying to state that it is not political an emotional response to people against the health care bill that the Democrats support? 

You may not remember what it is like going through treatment, but I am right in the middle of it, and I have had every treatment that they give women.

Colette, don't EVEN assume I don't know what bc treatment is all about. I may not have had YOUR treatment, but do NOT belittle my experience. I've been through the agony of diagnosis twice. I've lost friends and family to this disease. I've seen the ravages AND success of cancer therapy.

I'm sorry you and everyone else here has had bc. It's horrible, unfair, and frustrating.

Maybe this task force will just end up as a blip, and we'll keep the status quo of breast cancer screening. To me, the argument is less about what age we institute routine screening, and more about putting forth dollars and effort to finding better tools. In the meantime, we can only use what we have. The triad of mammos, self-exam, and clinical exam works better together than one part standing alone. And even then, with all three legs of the triad standing as they should, women will die from this miserable disease.

I prefer to be "over treated" than "untreated" I have seen to many die because of the latter, none from the first.

November 26, 2009 - Kansas City.com

Breast cancer strikes many women under 50

When I heard the government task force recommendations for mammograms, I was didn't believe it. I feel that I would have been dead before age 50 had I followed those recommendations.

In my 40s, a self-exam revealed a lump. A mammogram agreed, and surgery confirmed breast cancer. This occurred a number of years before age 50.

Following recuperation, I became a Reach to Recovery volunteer. Over a period of 33 years volunteering, I had the opportunity to meet many other women who would have had little or no chance to survive had the government recommendations been followed. A large number of women were under age 50.

As a 37-year cancer survivor, my personal recommendations would be: monthly self-exams, mammograms starting at age 40 (earlier with breast cancer family history) and regular checkups. And get rid of Dr. Susan Love's books and literature pertaining to breast cancer.

Beverly Rizzo
Turney, Mo.

Great article GPawelski!  Thanks for sharing!

Well I would rather be screened and rule out a false positive then to be told to do nothing.  Yes, there is stress and anxiety during these screening procedures  -  but - it wont' kill you where breast cancer left undetected CAN KILL.  This is an individual patient choice to get a mammogram or not - if you don't want one then don't get it. However, we do not need a task force to run interference between a patient and their doctor, when this is an individual personal patient by patient decision. 

Ditto cookiegal - more funding for better diagnostic tools and methods to distinguish which cancers require needed treatments  - and to what extent.  Considering the MAJORITY of women diagnosed have NO family history  -  Susan Love is ignoring who makes up her so called army of women. 

I just watched the news which stated that the radiation from mammograms increase the chances of developing breast cancer. They are finally admitting it!!!! I think that is a big reason that the task force is recommending the change.

My packet of films is at least 1/2 inch thick! There is no way all of that radiation passing thru a smashed breast is good for you.

I agree with Madalyn. Where there is smoke there is fire.

The purpose of my post above is to cite what I heard amidst all of the debate on mammograms and increased risk of breast cancer. I now understand that no clear answer is available. Furthermore the statistics on risk from mammogram appear to be based on mathematical projection from Hiroshima radiation exposure. Perhaps others might lend a hand if different with citations.

Secondly on reading the full NIH article, I thought it noteworthy that radiation therapy has cured and saved lives. This is O/T, but important in breast cancer.

Tender

Radiation has helped to clean up my cancer....no doubt about it.  

However, it has also left me in constant pain and some disability.

I did it because it was part of the package deal that served to try to kill the cancer wrapped around my chest wall.

6 Fields max dose with 2 sets of boosts.

Part of the risk is that I may be partially paralyzed in my advanced years...if I were to see them. 

Radiation:  I don't know that I would recommend it to someone who didn't need it. 

 Not suggesting that mammograms are on this level...but, we do know that rads are cumulative and that they are POWERFUL cell damagers.

As for treating cancers that "don't need to be treated"...not so much.  I KNOW what the aftereffects are of cancer treatment...and I wouldn't wish them on anyone. 

Just sayin'.

tl 

To All - as posted before I disagree with the guidelines - my opposition to  Dr. Susan Love is the harm she does with her terminology.  When I was first diagnosed in 2000 - she described treatment as mutilation, poisoning and burning.  I was not mutilated by my breast surgeon or poisoned by my oncologist.  These dedicated professionals,  who have given their professional lives to deal with us in our darkest hours, used their expertise to save my life.  I have always worried about newly diagnosed women hearing such inflammatory language.  Right now, here in 2009, mammography and BSE are the most effective, mass screening tools we have. They are not perfect as our treatment options are not perfect. We need better, but we are making progress.  Digital mammography, MRIs . .. .   The guidelines do not say that screening does not save lives between 40 and 49 - it says they don't save enough lives.  Since BC is unfortunately a very common cancer - how many lives is enough?  My mother died in 1972 at the age of 49 from BC - she didn't have any options, mammography was not being used commonly, use of chemo was not common.  I was diagnosed at 42 by mammography and am 9 years out. We have made progress - we must not go backwards.   We must continue to utilize the tools we do have and work to improve those tools for our daughters.  

I second what iodine says: I think mutilation describes what happened to me. I didn't have chemo or radiation, but everyone I know who has would would agree with Dr. Love's description. I like Dr. Love because she doesn't sugar coat things.



By the way, I also don't feel like my doctors used their expertise to save my life and I certainly never felt like my bc would kill me. My doctors treat me, but at every turn I have had to research my options and make decisions for myself. Their judgement can be/has been wrong - what I want them to do is to explain their logic to me and to listen to my logic. Then I make a decision.

For those of you who were mutilated - I seriously suggest you change Dr's.

Laura, my treatment for bc has been surgical and hormonal. The fact that I feel like the treatment is mutilating has nothing to do with my doctors (particularly my surgeon), but the vary nature of the the surgery. A mastectomy, the amputation of breasts, no matter how skillfully performed, is mutilation, imo.

For what it's worth....my BS says it was the ultrasound that really found my cancer, because the mammo's were inconclusive.

Can't we all just get along?

I wish we could all respect each others right to disagree.

It's true Dr. Love says cut,poison,burn. Not the most comforting language I'll admit, but for some women it rings true.

While I don't agree with every thing she says, the ideas are important.

For almost every treatment there is a downside. That doesn't make them not worthwhile. It's kind of a yin-yang thing to me.