Dr. Love Responded to a Question I had about Scanning!!

I'm personally glad to hear that. For me, blissful ignorance is my preference. I'm glad to know that at least at this point, early mets detection isn't important in terms of length of survival. Thanks for posting

It really is a sad statement about current treatment that outcomes could be the same. I don't believe it myself. It's got to be better to catch and treat a bone met before it breaks a bone.

I agree with dr Love, as I am an example of someone whose mets weren't caught early, yet I am doing well. When I was diagnosed with mets, I had 2 liver tumors, one of which was 11 cm, the biggest I have ever seen anyone on here have. Yet, here I am over 3 years out ( Ned for over 2 1/2 years) and doing really well because I responded well to treatment. I have seen women diagnosed with very small liver mets who are now gone because their cancer didn't respond to treatment.

Laurie

She's a medical doctor and I'm not, but that just does not make intuitive sense! Is she saying that catching one lone bone met, which occasionally can be curable, is the same as catching the cancer after it spreads to vital organs? MEH

personally i think these MO s get some kind of bonus or incentive if they order less scans. i think its a conspiracy and that she is on the take too. not a Love fan either

I am a fan of Dr. Love and her foundation. Much more than Susan G. Komen and Nancy Brinker. At least all proceeds are going towards research. Dr. Love is also facing her own cancer diagnosis (not breast) so, I would trust her more than these highly paid CEO's of many of the so called "Pink Charities". I wish more women would sign up for the foundation's research projects, maybe we would have an answer to the scanning question if they did.

I guess from my perspective, I don't put a lot of trust in scans. My ILC wasn't found on any scan, not even MRI. It wasn't until after a biopsy and they knew what they were looking for, could they see it on a CT/PET scan. I agree that more research should be focused on a cure. I didn't feel that she was criticizing scans though, they have their place in all this mess, but maybe not in followup with no symptoms. Personally, I couldn't take being scanned just to check every year. The anxiety would drive me insane.

30 years of mammograms didn't catch either of my breast cancers so I am not a fan of routine mammograms. In fact, I've only had one since my 2011 diagnosis; have been putting off making the appointment. I check myself every month; that is how I found the two I had.

I had an MRI after my biopsy because of a suspicious lymph node in the opposite armpit, but nobody has suggested further MRIs.

The data she is refering too is old as someone else has said. Also im always weary when someone suggests financial gain from scanning or not scanning.. in Canada we have socialized medicine and our guidelines in ontario are the same..wait for symptoms. What about quality of life ? My sister had bone mets and they were extremely painful

the treatment and standard of care for stage iv is changing slowly. Me? I do not want bone mets to get so bad that I live in excruciating pain and the bones begin to crumble. The idea that there is no difference between early and later detection and outcomes for stage iv is based on outdated data. My hope is to live as long as I can with quality of life. And to do that, we need to know if the disease is progressing so that we can knock it back. I have life left in me, and want that life to have quality.

Momine -Thanks for including the link to the EJMO. Boy to read that  BC is still increasing in numbers diagnosed across the world boggles tbe mind. I do not agree w/ Dr Susan Love on re testing schedules but I know she has consulted Univ of Mich chief  MO in her book where I worked as a nurse or many years, so I know they ar some of the best.   It amazes me that post BC studies stop at 5 years and only note if patient alive or not.  For us mets folks that does no tell the full story. 

fredntan-I agree with you- it is ridiculous you had to travel so - the initial MO should have treated you / given a scan when you presented with a symptom (pain in your hip).

Related note to original post - ASCO recently released 'top 5" list of tests to avoid. PET scans or CT scans to monitor for recurrence in ASYMPTOMATIC patients is number 3.

http://www.curetoday.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/news.showNewsArticle/id/13/news_id/3838

I was just told this by my onc office as well, having finished with my initial dx treatment plan (and now treating to lower chance of recurrence). There is something to be said about the stress of ongoing testing, and if something is found--the stress of the dx, treatment, etc. To me, I am comfortable with the tradeoff of being less stressed with possibility that mets may progress faster had it been found prior to symptoms presenting. But then, I'm 46, and stage 1.

I believe that with cancer patients the concern for unnecessary radiation is real. There is so much toxicity associated with treatment, that unnecessary toxicity is a goal to avoid (for all patients, let alone cancer patients). I'm thinking about CT scans specifically…

Once, a couple of years back, I mentioned to my MO another doctor's recommendation re another possible medical concern (not to do with breast cancer) that I get a CT scan.

My MO freaked that another prominent doctor would recommend a CT scan in the face of NO symptom. Just as a baseline, just to be sure, was the thinking, re this other concern. MO explained that radiation is real and you don't just do these tests for no reason. I see MO's point. I actually turned out to have this other symptom a few weeks ago; a CT scan was ordered and I'm in the clear, thankfully. But that CT scan was for a reason, I presented with a symptom. I think now, back to when I was about to get a CT scan a couple of years ago with no symptom, and I'm very thankful (re unnecessary radiation) that I didn't. Just think about all the radiation we get that is necessary, or in the even of actual, potential, symptoms! So while I do agree cost has something to do with this, I don't think that's the whole story. The radiation factor is real, and must be considered, weighed, as part of the 'cost' in the cost benefit analysis.

At the same time, it does seem intuitive that the sooner you treat something, the better your chances of response or success.

lol. I'm dead anyway. I'll take the radiation in order to catch progression earlier and treat earlier. It's all about quality of life.