Breast Cancer Screening

reply to post by newsoul


I am sorry Newsoul - but what you said about breast cancer treatments just isn't true!

www.inpharm.com...

A woman doing a self-exam is only going to find well-developed masses that are large enough to be of true concern. Mammograms find masses that are too small to be worth treating. That is why 6 of 10 woman undergo mutilation for every life supposed "saved"

Tired of Control Freaks

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by newsoul

 

I am sorry Newsoul - but what you said about breast cancer treatments just isn't true!

www.inpharm.com...

A woman doing a self-exam is only going to find well-developed masses that are large enough to be of true concern. Mammograms find masses that are too small to be worth treating. That is why 6 of 10 woman undergo mutilation for every life supposed "saved"

Tired of Control Freaks

This is a quote from the article that YOU linked "firstly regular screening programsand advanced diagnostic methods mean breast cancer is more likely to be detected in the early stages, when it’s easier to treat successfully." (bold added)

This quote goes against everything that you have been saying and verifies everything I have been saying.

Also, the article makes it sound like they have a ton of new treatments, when in actuality, if you research the most commonly used chemotherapy drugs and other drugs, they have been around for many years. Tamoxifen, a drug that helps stop the production of estrogen, has been in use since the early 80's. There are many trials available, but most often, women are treated with the same drugs that were used in the 70's and 80's.

I'm going to over look the fact that you just told me "what you said about breast cancer treatments just isn't true!"
I just went through the treatments, I think I know what is true and what isn't!

reply to post by newsoul


But Newsoul - you ARE the proof. Stage 4 breast cancer used to be a death sentence. Because of better treatment methods, you survived.

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


I had stage 1 invasive ductal carcinoma. And again, it is because of early detection that it didn't progress into stage 2, 3 or 4. If I had let it go and watched it for a couple of months, it wouldn't have been stage 1. It is a rapid growing cancer.

reply to post by newsoul


Newsoul

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Like I said - I have rung the alarm bell. Every woman is still going to have to make her own decisions based on her own situation.

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


Agreed

I have been performing mammograms on women for 28 years. I want to toss my thoughts into this discussion:

Breast Screening programs, at least the ones that I have been a part of, obtain detailed histories from the patients as part of the screening program. In addition to tracking the results of mammograms, other information is tracked. This information is compiled after a certain period of time and that is where we get our statistics. For example, it appears that women who were pregnant and breastfed in their 20's seemed to lower the incidence of breast cancers in that group. Screening programs not only provide regular screening, they track trends and spit out the findings in the reports on breast cancer that you hear.

In Canada, we have begun providing breast MRI's to high risk patients and most women who undergo breast cancer surgery will have an MRI prior to surgery. MRI was greatly anticipated to be the end all to beat all in breast cancer screening. Initial reports are devastating. A small study revealed that women who received the MRI prior to surgery were having larger resections done in order to get cleaner borders around the cancers and some were found to have more extensive disease than appeared on mammography or ultrasound. It was found that pre-surgical breast MRI had no impact on recurrence rates or mortality rates. A real blow. I'm sorry that I don't have an article to site this information, it was presented at a recent Breast disease symposium that I attended.

Another startling fact. 10 years ago, it was am extreme rarity to come across a woman in her 30's with breast cancer, and dealing with someone in their 40's was uncommon. Ask any Mammographer and she will tell you that there has been a rise in the detection of breast cancers in women in their 30's and 40's. Women in this age group generally have lumpier breasts so doctors were a little slow to react when these patients came in with new lumps. That is changing. I am performing mammograms routinely now on women in their 30's and 40's, even without a family history. The question I have though is are we finding these cancers because we are performing more mammograms in this age group and prior to this, were these cancers sitting there, undetected, and resolving themselves, or is there a true rise in incidence of women in this group developing breast cancer....?

As to the safety of the procedure, I haven't heard a single study address the dangers of irradiating the breast tissue, likely because the risk is unquantifiable. It's a benefit vs risk issue. Yes, there are false positives and where a mammogram or ultrasound is indeterminate as to the nature of a lump, biopsy will be recommended and some results come back negative. Some will view this as unnecessary medical treatment. Personally, if there's a lump in my breast that no one can assure me is benign, I would want it biopsied, or removed. If you're going to question the safety of radiation exposure to your breast, then I believe it's fair to ask you to evaluate the rest of your lifestyle choices as well. If you smoke, drink to excess, ingest processed foods with non organic vegetables and fruits, fly south to the sun every winter, then that lifestyle surely has a more negative impact on your body than a mammogram does.....I'm just saying...

I am a little disturbed by repeated references to women's breasts being "mutilated" by surgeries and biopsies. That infers ill intent. By definition,mutilation is an act of physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body, usually causing death. I just don't get approaching medical treatment with an antagonistic attitude. We don't rejoice when we come across a suspicious finding and have to refer someone for further treatment. I think each one of us offers up a little prayer for these women, so to suggest that we "mutilate" them is a little harsh.....

As far as breast Cancers resolving them-selves, I believe much more research has to be done. The last I heard was a report out in the 90's stating that up to 22% of breast cancers could be self resolving. The trick was finding out which ones. If I had a breast cancer detected right now, I would be playing Russian roulette if I sat and waited for it to resolve. Would I be one of the 22% or 78% ?

In the end, if you don't want to have a mammogram, then don't have one. If you think it's going to harm your breast, then don't have one. Keep your fingers crossed. Down the road, if you should develop a breast cancer that has spread, then at least you will know that it wasn't caused by breast screening and if you have to have a radical mastectomy and intensive chemotherapy and radiation, then you will know then that your breast cancer wasn't a self resolving one......... me, until something better comes along, I'm going to keep having one every 3 years...

reply to post by meemaw


Meemaw:

"The question I have though is are we finding these cancers because we are performing more mammograms in this age group and prior to this, were these cancers sitting there, undetected, and resolving themselves, or is there a true rise in incidence of women in this group developing breast cancer....? "

That is EXACTLY the question that started this post.

And I am sorry - but cutting off a breast unnecessarily - even if you are doing it with a scapel and the best intentions in the world - is still mutilation.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

It is NOT antagonistic - it just is the right word!

Tired of Control Freaks

Tired of Control Freaks

I feel and share your frustration, I really do......

"The question I have though is are we finding these cancers because we are performing more mammograms in this age group and prior to this, were these cancers sitting there, undetected, and resolving themselves, or is there a true rise in incidence of women in this group developing breast cancer....? "

We are doing more mammograms on this age group, and there are more confirmed malignancies than there were 10 years ago. Keep in mind that I am referring to biopsy confirmed malignancies, not benign breast disease like fibroadenoma or infection. I have only seen this increase over the past 3-5 years and it will be some time before someone releases a study on it.....

What is the answer??? A cure. Not better detection, not better chemo and radiation therapy, not better surgical reconstruction techniques, but a cure.

I am going to open up another can of worms and ask you to watch this video:

Sodium Dichloroacetate

This is one of many promising drugs out there that have been touted as potential cures for cancer but have been orphaned because there's so much cost involved in getting it past the clinical trial stage and they are so inexpensive to produce, the drug companies will make no money off them, so no one is picking it up. With the billions of dollars being dumped into Cancer Societies, and "Pink" campaigns, what I want to know is why that money isn't being used to push this drug through clinical trial? I have digressed though, and think this is a topic for another thread...

reply to post by meemaw



Meemaw

I completely agree - I have been watching the cancer society and other charities. They are pulling in billions by tugging on heart strings but the fact is that they are in it for the money! They spend very little of what they rake in on actual research.

Here in Canada, the Cancer Society runs these very very emotional effects "race for the cure" but out of every dollar raised, 64 cents goes into paying people for fund raising. this greatly exceeds the 10 cents / dollar that the government believes should go to administration costs but no one is stopping them or pulling their charitable licence.

Are you aware that it is the Cancer Society that owns and operates breast screening clinics? I think that is why we are seeing such aggressive screening.

I have heard of the chemical you mentioned. It was researched at the University of Alberta. I have never had cancer, so it hard to know exactly what I will do, if it happens to me...but to be honest, I think I would accept surgery but reject chemo and radiation.

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


Here is a web on Sodium Dichloroacetate.

Apparently, they have started a clinical trial!

Tired of Control Freaks