OPINION: Statistics deny that early screening for BC saves lives

Holy Moly!  I think my BP just rocketed upon reading this opinion piece.

Wow. And how can anyone be certain that a mammo didn't save any lives?? Now survivors have been reduced to a bunch women who are "good story tellers". I am sorry this guy sounds like an ass.

However inflammatory it may seem, that is also my best understanding.

There is no survival benefit to having routine mammograms. 

That information has been repeated a number of times in a number of different studies.

Even though the man is saying something that you don't want to hear...the facts appear to be on his side.

There have been a number of opinions released between 1993 or so and 2005 or so that indicate that mammograms are no better than BSE in terms of survival outcomes.

It is very confusing.  Very. 

Underlying these many articles that I have read...

There seems to be an implied challenge to the belief that breast cancers eventually become invasive.

It would seem that the traditional treatment of breast cancer revolves around the idea that cancers become large and invasive over time.

It is possible that certain cancers are invasive and others are not...they are non-progressive (seems to be the buzz word.)

There are other, tiny little cancers that progress rapidly.

What if the naysayers are right?

That we are "beating" (non-progressive) breast cancer so very well.

I don't know the answers...but, all of this uproar does really make me think.

I hope that it can lead to some very real advances against this disease..for the people whose mammogram did not "save their lives."

 tl

That is my best understanding of the objectives of the health care reforms before our congress...to "decide" what we should spend our money on.

 -----------------

I'm sure that my feelings are directly impacted by my experiences.

I am one of the "anecdotes."

In my particular instance, I have a hard time (emotionally) supporting a diagnostic tool that can find a 1mm mass in your breast...yet cannot "see" a 3cm IDC in mine...not to mention the 8cm+ of fixed matted lymph nodes wrapped around my chest wall.

It is not hard to convince me that mammograms are not effective...largely because of my own experience...this tool could not see masses that were so large that the ones on my chest wall were visible on a common chest x-ray...yet, we are spending alot of money on them.

I was diagnosed by lymphnodectomy...because the doctors in the resident facility could not find the primary.

Mammogram, shmammogram.

I think we need a better tool. 

tl 

So you think my cousin diagnosed with stage III at age 43 by a screening mammogram should have let that sit their for another 7 years. You are against early detection and you prefer socialsim or communist health care programs? Why have all these people stayed in this country so long if they hated it so much? They think socialism is so great, there are plenty of socialist countries out there to go and enjoy..why ruin the one great place left?

2GIRLS - Great point!

Again:

What is so wrong with keeping the standards AS IS - UNTIL someone manufactures a proven-safe, cost effective, accurate diagnostic machine! HELLO! What am I missing? Change should only happen when there's a BETTER option/solution.

If some of you want to wait until 50 - PLEEEEASE feel free to do so! I promise...I won't beg you to get a mammogram before then. Really, I won't and nobody else will either! And guess what? Your Dr is not going to hold a gun to your head and force you have one done at 40!

TammyLou...I have proved to you that it depends on the expertise of the radiologist.  I had to have FOURTH Dr not with the original group to get the size right...all using the SAME EXACT FILMS.

What they obviously need is more training before reading mammograms.

During this firestorm, several breast cancer experts point out to the AGE of the studies the mammogram statistics are obtained. Apparently given the value of mammogram, one can't do a randomized study for ethical reasons in the last decade or longer and follow the recipients and non- recipients for survival as the end point? Randomization means you get a mammogram, you don't, and denying a woman or man a mammogram through randomization is up front not allowed by study ethics rules.

Also saw reference to newer modalities not yet being added in to contribution of statistics when used with mammograms. Like mammogram and ultrasound, mammogram and MRI, mammogram and thermosphere etc. 

So it would seem that some of the database are old data and newer observational, meta-analysis studies are not the gold standard: blinded prospective randomized studies are.

A mammogram found mine.  There was no lump.  As it turned out, it was aggressive.  However, I'm not blind to the fact that it can't come back, but the hope is there that since it was early, AND AGGRESSIVE, I'm hoping that it won't.  I'm hearing that it doesn't find all breast cancers.  Ok, so if this is the only tool we have, do we abandon it for something better.  MRIs through false positive and false negatives too. Do we abandon those tools as well as we wait for "something better"?

Good grief, I hope not. I'm in my fifties, and have three daughters who I told that they WILL be getting their mammos....having free wills, we'll see. If they are among the hundreds that will be diagnosed down the road, I'm hoping it's early, and they have a good chance of being able to say that they are cured.

I hope I am.

Jennifer

econmom...I agree with you on that one that it pushes our buttons.  I also agree that we need better tools...but until that happens, then we need to keep using what we have which is mammograms.

I don't think many people understand that the insurances aren't saying that mammograms are expensive, because they are not (Only $100 to $300 to do one)...what IS expensive is the cancer treatment.  How do you bring down cancer treatment costs?  By limiting the testing which Doctors use to diagnose the condition....which means making it harder to get those tests.

There was one breast cancer.org user which also pointed out the fact that most women under 50 will pro-sue breast cancer reconstruction which adds a large amount of cost to the over all cost of cancer treatment.  When you add treatments like Herceptin the amount adds up quickly.

The government needs to stay out of our personal lives and it is a slippery slope that they are going down.