Science and Technology : Mammograms Unnecessary???

[Kemetstry]

Mammograms lead to overtreatment, do little to curb late-stage breast cancers, study concludes
Washington Post·3 hours ago Mammograms have done surprisingly little to catch deadly breast cancers before they spread, a big U.S. study finds. At the same time, more than a million women…
By Associated Press,

Nov 21, 2012 10:18 PM EST

AP Updated: Wednesday, November 21, 2:18 PM
Mammograms have done surprisingly little to catch deadly breast cancers before they spread, a big U.S. study finds. At the same time, more than a million women have been treated for cancers that never would have threatened their lives, researchers estimate.
Up to one-third of breast cancers, or 50,000 to 70,000 cases a year, don’t need treatment, the study suggests.

It’s the most detailed look yet at overtreatment of breast cancer, and it adds fresh evidence that screening is not as helpful as many women believe. Mammograms are still worthwhile, because they do catch some deadly cancers and save lives, doctors stress. And some of them disagree with conclusions the new study reached.
But it spotlights a reality that is tough for many Americans to accept: Some abnormalities that doctors call “cancer” are not a health threat or truly malignant. There is no good way to tell which ones are, so many women wind up getting treatments like surgery and chemotherapy that they don’t really need.
Men have heard a similar message about PSA tests to screen for slow-growing prostate cancer, but it’s relatively new to the debate over breast cancer screening.

We’re coming to learn that some cancers — many cancers, depending on the organ — weren’t destined to cause death,” said Dr. Barnett Kramer, a National Cancer Institute screening expert. However, “once a woman is diagnosed, it’s hard to say treatment is not necessary.”
He had no role in the study, which was led by Dr. H. Gilbert Welch of Dartmouth Medical School and Dr. Archie Bleyer of St. Charles Health System and Oregon Health & Science University. Results are in Thursday’s New England Journal of Medicine.
Breast cancer is the leading type of cancer and cause of cancer deaths in women worldwide. Nearly 1.4 million new cases are diagnosed each year. Other countries screen less aggressively than the U.S. does. In Britain, for example, mammograms are usually offered only every three years and a recent review there found similar signs of overtreatment.


.

 

[dunwiddat]

Mammograms lead to overtreatment, do little to curb late-stage breast cancers, study concludes
Washington Post·3 hours ago Mammograms have done surprisingly little to catch deadly breast cancers before they spread, a big U.S. study finds. At the same time, more than a million women…
By Associated Press,

Nov 21, 2012 10:18 PM EST

AP Updated: Wednesday, November 21, 2:18 PM
Mammograms have done surprisingly little to catch deadly breast cancers before they spread, a big U.S. study finds. At the same time, more than a million women have been treated for cancers that never would have threatened their lives, researchers estimate.
Up to one-third of breast cancers, or 50,000 to 70,000 cases a year, don’t need treatment, the study suggests.

It’s the most detailed look yet at overtreatment of breast cancer, and it adds fresh evidence that screening is not as helpful as many women believe. Mammograms are still worthwhile, because they do catch some deadly cancers and save lives, doctors stress. And some of them disagree with conclusions the new study reached.
But it spotlights a reality that is tough for many Americans to accept: Some abnormalities that doctors call “cancer” are not a health threat or truly malignant. There is no good way to tell which ones are, so many women wind up getting treatments like surgery and chemotherapy that they don’t really need.
Men have heard a similar message about PSA tests to screen for slow-growing prostate cancer, but it’s relatively new to the debate over breast cancer screening.

We’re coming to learn that some cancers — many cancers, depending on the organ — weren’t destined to cause death,” said Dr. Barnett Kramer, a National Cancer Institute screening expert. However, “once a woman is diagnosed, it’s hard to say treatment is not necessary.”
He had no role in the study, which was led by Dr. H. Gilbert Welch of Dartmouth Medical School and Dr. Archie Bleyer of St. Charles Health System and Oregon Health & Science University. Results are in Thursday’s New England Journal of Medicine.
Breast cancer is the leading type of cancer and cause of cancer deaths in women worldwide. Nearly 1.4 million new cases are diagnosed each year. Other countries screen less aggressively than the U.S. does. In Britain, for example, mammograms are usually offered only every three years and a recent review there found similar signs of overtreatment.


.

This interesting...I had one about three years ago...I read somewhere it stated that breast cancer among African women is very small...There is a school of thought which suggest wearing of brassiers which retrict the flow of blood could be a cause.. Also constant abortions. I read this somewhere Kemstry..not sure where I can find the link.

 

[Kemetstry]

This interesting...I had one about three years ago...I read somewhere it stated that breast cancer among African women is very small...There is a school of thought which suggest wearing of brassiers which retrict the flow of blood could be a cause.. Also constant abortions. I read this somewhere Kemstry..not sure where I can find the link.

I think that is an old wives tale. lol





..

 

[Fieldpea]

My breast cancer was discovered with a mammogram screening. I didn't manifest an easily discoverable tumor. The cancer site was a milk duct located just a scant few millimeters away from my chest wall. No monthly hand palp would have ever worked in my own case because of its location; otherwise, my type of breast cancer was the most common kind--Ductal Carcinoma In Situ, or DCIS, estrogen positive.


I wasn't all that consistent about checking for lumps in my breast each month--by the way, all women should *also* check their underarms monthly for the manifestation of lumps, too, still...


Without that mammogram, there is no way I'd have learned that I had developed cancer *anywhere* in my breast.


It is interesting to me that the article suggests that not all breast cancers are destined to kill anybody, and it makes me want to mention this to my medical oncologist so that I can get his considered opinion about it, but I did notice that the article said nothing about *metastisizing cancers*.


See, I wonder if the lethality of a developing cancer is nil when it involves a particular kind of breast cell (on the one hand), yet should the cancer metastisize to a 'different type of cell' in a different part of the body, would such a cancer spread stick to the same kind of cell as found in the breast? Or would it spread to a different part of the body, but into a different kind of cell?


Here's what I mean:


The human body is made up of 4 different kinds of cells. The human breast is made up of more than one of these cell types. Milk ducts are made up of one kind of cell. The fatty tissue is made up of a different kind of cell. The muscles of the breast is made up of another type of cell. The nipple (for example) is made up of a different type of cell (either the same as *skin* is made up of, but possibly different). I say same as skin, but only for the sake of argument--I actually don't know, as it *could* be made up of two! The nipple has an 'external component to it' (skin) as well as the internal component/s (where the milk duct system is involved). I'm just saying for the sake of argument (please excuse my lack of knowledge, here).


Having said all of that (above), my breast cancer was *initially* diagnosed as Stage 0, estrogen positive. IF MY CANCER HAD NOT SPREAD FROM THE MILK DUCT TO THE FATTY TISSUES IMMEDIATELY SURROUNDING THE MILK DUCT, my cancer would have been diagnosed as STAGE ZERO (that's Stage 0, DCIS, estrogen positive).


So here's what happened to me. I occasionally would remember to do self-examination, but if I forgot to do it, no big deal. When I would remember and then would do my self-exam, I wasn't picking up any changes--no lumps. No change? No fear.


I had both breasts examined via mammogram screening. Left breast was OK; however, I was told that there was some kind of irregularity noticeable in the right breast. I was then forwarded for additional testing. I was referred to an oncology surgeon. A biopsy was performed and on the surgeon's recommendation, I went to the magnetic resonance folks (MRI) for the 3-D *ultra-sound* (what I call it) view. CONFIRMATION.


I was told I had STAGE 0 breast cancer because all tests prior to surgery *were visual and/or blood tests* and didn't indicate any spread of cancer cells. I chose lumpectomy (partial breast removal) + lymphadenectomy (removal of sentinel lymph node under my right arm + the partial removal of an associated lymph node--both being removed to determine if my cancer had/had not metastisized from the milk duct into the lymph system (two different kinds of cell types involved--milk duct, type a (what I'll call them to differentiate for this explanation); lymph cells, type b).


The results of the surgery? I was NOT at Stage 0. I was at Stage 1. The cancer cells had fully involved my milk duct (cell type a), and had gone beyond the milk duct into the fatty tissue immediately surrounding that same milk duct (cell type c). Fortunately for me, it was confirmed that the cancer HAD NOT metastasized into the lymph system (cell type b), though IT DID METASTASIZE into the fatty tissues.


NONE OF THESE DISCOVERIES *were possible* WITHOUT THAT MAMMOGRAM!


When I read and process the nature of the information in the article, I have reason to ask myself 'What if it was the case that I didn't need to subject myself to all of the trouble involved in surviving a cancer diagnosis?


And even if I am wrong for thinking this way, as a present-day post-op cancer survivor, I can't see sense dictating that I would have EVER taken the chance of *not doing mammograms* for the POTENTIAL *life saving results* that such tests offers to women AND men, too, so...


Here's what I think is happening with this article:


A doctor/some doctors are *suggesting* that mammograms are less necessary/less efficacious as diagnostic tools than has been 'assumed', and present-day lead to alot of unnecessary surgeries. SMH, but I think I smell the INSURANCE INDUSTRY's interests lurking *somewhere* in this article.


This is not the first time, recently, that there has been some kind of *noise* raised regarding women and mammograms, though the last time I heard something about this issue, it involved disagreement about the AGE that women should begin to engage in *annual mammogram testing*, so...


For my own reasons, I'd have to disagree with the doctor/s authoring this article, only because I am aware of the risk (danger) of cancer cells metastasizing--from one cancer cell type to a different type.


One Love, and PEACE

 

[Kemetstry]

My breast cancer was discovered with a mammogram screening. I didn't manifest an easily discoverable tumor. The cancer site was a milk duct located just a scant few millimeters away from my chest wall. No monthly hand palp would have ever worked in my own case because of its location; otherwise, my type of breast cancer was the most common kind--Ductal Carcinoma In Situ, or DCIS, estrogen positive.

I wasn't all that consistent about checking for lumps in my breast each month--by the way, all women should *also* check their underarms monthly for the manifestation of lumps, too, still...

Without that mammogram, there is no way I'd have learned that I had developed cancer *anywhere* in my breast.

It is interesting to me that the article suggests that not all breast cancers are destined to kill anybody, and it makes me want to mention this to my medical oncologist so that I can get his considered opinion about it, but I did notice that the article said nothing about *metastisizing cancers*.

See, I wonder if the lethality of a developing cancer is nil when it involves a particular kind of breast cell (on the one hand), yet should the cancer metastisize to a 'different type of cell' in a different part of the body, would such a cancer spread stick to the same kind of cell as found in the breast? Or would it spread to a different part of the body, but into a different kind of cell?

Here's what I mean:

The human body is made up of 4 different kinds of cells. The human breast is made up of more than one of these cell types. Milk ducts are made up of one kind of cell. The fatty tissue is made up of a different kind of cell. The muscles of the breast is made up of another type of cell. The nipple (for example) is made up of a different type of cell (either the same as *skin* is made up of, but possibly different). I say same as skin, but only for the sake of argument--I actually don't know, as it *could* be made up of two! The nipple has an 'external component to it' (skin) as well as the internal component/s (where the milk duct system is involved). I'm just saying for the sake of argument (please excuse my lack of knowledge, here).

Having said all of that (above), my breast cancer was *initially* diagnosed as Stage 0, estrogen positive. IF MY CANCER HAD NOT SPREAD FROM THE MILK DUCT TO THE FATTY TISSUES IMMEDIATELY SURROUNDING THE MILK DUCT, my cancer would have been diagnosed as STAGE ZERO (that's Stage 0, DCIS, estrogen positive).

So here's what happened to me. I occasionally would remember to do self-examination, but if I forgot to do it, no big deal. When I would remember and then would do my self-exam, I wasn't picking up any changes--no lumps. No change? No fear.

I had both breasts examined via mammogram screening. Left breast was OK; however, I was told that there was some kind of irregularity noticeable in the right breast. I was then forwarded for additional testing. I was referred to an oncology surgeon. A biopsy was performed and on the surgeon's recommendation, I went to the magnetic resonance folks (MRI) for the 3-D *ultra-sound* (what I call it) view. CONFIRMATION.

I was told I had STAGE 0 breast cancer because all tests prior to surgery *were visual and/or blood tests* and didn't indicate any spread of cancer cells. I chose lumpectomy (partial breast removal) + lymphadenectomy (removal of sentinel lymph node under my right arm + the partial removal of an associated lymph node--both being removed to determine if my cancer had/had not metastisized from the milk duct into the lymph system (two different kinds of cell types involved--milk duct, type a (what I'll call them to differentiate for this explanation); lymph cells, type b).

The results of the surgery? I was NOT at Stage 0. I was at Stage 1. The cancer cells had fully involved my milk duct (cell type a), and had gone beyond the milk duct into the fatty tissue immediately surrounding that same milk duct (cell type c). Fortunately for me, it was confirmed that the cancer HAD NOT metastasized into the lymph system (cell type b), though IT DID METASTASIZE into the fatty tissues.

NONE OF THESE DISCOVERIES *were possible* WITHOUT THAT MAMMOGRAM!

When I read and process the nature of the information in the article, I have reason to ask myself 'What if it was the case that I didn't need to subject myself to all of the trouble involved in surviving a cancer diagnosis?

And even if I am wrong for thinking this way, as a present-day post-op cancer survivor, I can't see sense dictating that I would have EVER taken the chance of *not doing mammograms* for the POTENTIAL *life saving results* that such tests offers to women AND men, too, so...

Here's what I think is happening with this article:

A doctor/some doctors are *suggesting* that mammograms are less necessary/less efficacious as diagnostic tools than has been 'assumed', and present-day lead to alot of unnecessary surgeries. SMH, but I think I smell the INSURANCE INDUSTRY's interests lurking *somewhere* in this article.

This is not the first time, recently, that there has been some kind of *noise* raised regarding women and mammograms, though the last time I heard something about this issue, it involved disagreement about the AGE that women should begin to engage in *annual mammogram testing*, so...

For my own reasons, I'd have to disagree with the doctor/s authoring this article, only because I am aware of the risk (danger) of cancer cells metastasizing--from one cancer cell type to a different type.

One Love, and PEACE

So, how is one to know without testing? Maybe they are saying that it should be done once a year>





..