Breast Cancer Screening

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


I've recently read that the recommended yearly mammograms for woman has changed to every other year. They have actually found that mammograms are causing cancer. Could the rise in rates be because of the screening itself?

Do mammograms cause cancer?

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


I'll tell you what, you have one of your breasts removed, go through reconstruction (which by the way, is excrutiating) and see if you want to live with the fear of having to do it again in 5,10 or 15 years. So yes, I had both of my breasts removed because of the "fear" that it would come back in the other breast.

See I wasn't upset with you and I thought we were having a rational conversation and then you go and say something like that. Are you a guy?? No really, are you a guy?

I do not think that my mother-in-law went through nothing. I said that she had a lumpectomy and radiation and has had no further problems. With the type of cancer that she had, they did not recommend having a mastectomy. It wasn't invasive. Do you think she should have just left it there? Is that what you would do?
If you found out tomorrow that you have some type of cancer and that it is not invasive, would you just leave it there?

Non-invasive cancer can spread. Just because it is called non-invasive doesn't mean it doesn't grow and spread. It just grows and spreads slower.

reply to post by newsoul


I'm sorry, I've calmed down now

And to answer one of your earlier questions: I had never had a breast screening before finding the lump. The typical screeing age starts at 40. I was 35 when my sister was diagnosed and my OB/GYN still wouldn't send me for one. He said because there was no other family history, it wasn't needed. So the first mammogram that I had was after I felt the lump, went to work and scanned myself and saw that it was absolutely not normal.

reply to post by newsoul


Newsoul

I don't question your personal choice to have a double mastectomy. You are 39 and in fear of your life. What is a breast compared to a life? You had invasive cancer. You did what you had to do.

But this discussion doesn't really apply to you. I am talking about woman who have no symptoms, who did not know that they had a mass. Breast screening picks up on masses before they become apparant on palpation.

Many of the cancers picked up by routine screening would never become a problem. And woman are choosing mastectomy because of the same fear that you had. That is the damning part. If they had never been routinely screened, the mass would never have been found and would have never caused them a problem.

So here is the question - is 33,000 - 50,000 woman undergoing treatment (some just a lumpectomy and radiation, some (by choice), mastectomy, chemo, tamoxifen) too high a price to pay for the estimated life saved?

I don't know the answer - I am not telling anyone what choices to make - I am bringing up for discussion the fact that this is happening.

It doesn't matter if I am a guy or a girl. Cancer affects everyone. Would it matter if were 30,000 to 50,000 men were undergoing orchidectomy per year unnecessarily?
Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


Newsoul

Please read the link by Fictitous in this thread regarding mammography.

Understand that I am bringing up this very contentious subject for discussion - not to hurt anyone's feelings or to condemn anyone for the choices they have made. My mother died of breast cancer when she was only 40 and I was orphaned at 15. This topic is close to my heart. But not so close that I am willing to pay any price to "save a life". I always figured with my genetic history that I would not make "old bones" anyway so I lived my life quickly. For example, I had my children young because I feared leaving them as orphans. I have been fully insured since my first pregnancy and wrote my first will at 23 years old.

As for my choices, if I get cancer? I am an older woman. I have raised my children and helped raise my grandchildren. Sure I would love to see my great-grandchildren and I am not quite ready to step off the planet yet. However, I do not fear death. Lets just say that I would not automatically accept recommendations for treatment. I would be weighing the pro's and con's very very carefully. Extending life for the sake of longevity is not always the best option.

This is a topic that needs to be discussed.

Tired of Control Freaks

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by newsoul

 

Many of the cancers picked up by routine screening would never become a problem.

So here is the question - is 33,000 - 50,000 woman undergoing treatment (some just a lumpectomy and radiation, some (by choice), mastectomy, chemo, tamoxifen) too high a price to pay for the estimated life saved?


So if these cancers are undetected they will just go away? What about the ones that don't just go away? What about the women who don't have a lump and are asymptomatic, but still have invasive breast cancer? What do we do with them? Do we apologize for taking away the screening that might have saved their life it they had only found it sooner?

I'm sorry but every life is important to me. Every woman is someones daughter, sister, mother, aunt. So to answer your question, I don't think a price can be put on anyones life.

reply to post by newsoul


Newsoul

I have never once suggested taking away screening. There are people who have a genetic history that suggest screening is a very very good idea.

But yes - I do think you have to wrap your mind around the idea that at least 15 % - 25 % of the cancers that are detected by routine screening are in fact cancers that would be cleaned up by the person's own immune system.

You also have to wrap your mind around the idea that at least some of these woman, who have cancers that will "just go away" are choosing to have radical treatments (like double mastectomy) because of their fear. Certainly, as a single mother, had any breast cancer been detected in me - I would have undergone double mastectomy. Not so much now because my children are grown and I can withstand the risk.

I think you also have to wrap your mind around the fear that these woman are subjected to. I am sure you won't have to imagine too hard.

The facts seem to be that breast cancer has better treatment options now than they did 30 years ago and the risk of not getting mammograms until some symptom shows up is far less than it was 30 years ago.

I am not suggesting I have any answers to the problem here but as I pointed out, the Cancer societies have a profit motive". Is there anyone out there informing woman that there is a significant risk that a mammogram will reveal a cancer that your own immune system will resolve. That after diagnosis, it might be wise to wait 6 months or a year to see what the tumor will do before deciding on treatment options.

Tired of Control Freaks

NewSoul

In regards to the money issue and your contention that every woman's life is worth the price. In an ideal world, I would agree. But we don't live in an ideal world, we live in the real one. If its worth $25,000 - $50,000 to reduce the risk of invasive breast cancer in every woman, then tell me how much we should be spending to feed hungry children or to educate the ones who aren't hungry.

We do have other issues and there are many many ways to die that don't involve breast cancer. Is the life of someone dying in the cold because of lack of shelter worth less than the life of a woman with breast cancer (or actually worth less than the life of a woman who we don't know if she has invasive cancer or not).

Just how much money have we got anyway that we can afford to spend it to reduce risk that someone might die of cancer?

We have donated billions of dollars to the cancer societies to provide funding for cancer research and treatment. Should they be making a profit by setting both the guidelines for when and how often a woman gets a mammogram and running the mammogram clinics?

Tired of Control Freaks

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
NewSoul

If its worth $25,000 - $50,000 to reduce the risk of invasive breast cancer in every woman, then tell me how much we should be spending to feed hungry children or to educate the ones who aren't hungry.

We do have other issues and there are many many ways to die that don't involve breast cancer. Is the life of someone dying in the cold because of lack of shelter worth less than the life of a woman with breast cancer (or actually worth less than the life of a woman who we don't know if she has invasive cancer or not).

Just how much money have we got anyway that we can afford to spend it to reduce risk that someone might die of cancer?

We have donated billions of dollars to the cancer societies to provide funding for cancer research and treatment. Should they be making a profit by setting both the guidelines for when and how often a woman gets a mammogram and running the mammogram clinics?

Tired of Control Freaks [/quot


There are charities set up to feed hungry children. There are schools that send home backpacks full of food for underpriviledged children. There are soup kitchens in most areas. There are churches and individuals who donate food, time and money, to children and adults who have fallen on hard times. There are food stamps. (paid for by the tax payers) I am aware of the social issues in our society. I am aware that people freeze to death every night on the streets or in their homes because they can't afford to pay their gas bills. But we do have programs for them. There are shelters. There are programs offered by the government to help people with their heating costs.

I do not put one life above another, what I am saying and I don't think that you are understanding, is that there are indeed times when a mammogram has saved someones life. If funding is limited for screening, people will die.

reply to post by newsoul


Newsoul

You misunderstand me - if someone wants a mammogram - certainly let them have it! There are many many reasons why someone would suspect that they are susceptable to breast cancer.

What I am talking about it here is:

Should the recommended frequency of mammograms be reviewed by someone OTHER than the cancer societies?
Don't woman have the right to know about the risk of mammograms finding cancers that will otherwise resolve.

Tired of Control Freaks

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by newsoul

 

Newsoul

You misunderstand me - if someone wants a mammogram - certainly let them have it! There are many many reasons why someone would suspect that they are susceptable to breast cancer.

What I am talking about it here is:

Should the recommended frequency of mammograms be reviewed by someone OTHER than the cancer societies?
Don't woman have the right to know about the risk of mammograms finding cancers that will otherwise resolve.

Tired of Control Freaks

Yes, I do agree with you about the cancer societies role in this. It is a very big conflict of interest. The same with big pharma having contracts with doctors offices. Everytime a doctor gives a patient a free sample or writes a prescrition they get a cut from the pharma company. That isn't right.

I do believe that women should know about the risks associated from the radiation used during their mammogram, but I believe that most hospitals do inform their patients of that. They have to make sure the patient isn't pregnant before proceeding.

reply to post by newsoul


Newsoul

OK - so we agree on one thing. Cancer societies have a very big conflict of interest and SHOULD NOT be involved in developing breast screening guidelines.

I am NOT referring to the risks of radiation. I am referring to the very real risk that a cancer will be found and treated, that normally would have resolved by itself. 15 % to 25 % of these cancers result in unnecessary treatments (some mutilations, radiation risks from treatment as well as chemotherapy).

Who is telling these woman that there is a 1 in 4 chance that their treatment, if a mass is found, is completely unnecessary.

Tired of Control

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


I just don't know a woman who would wait to see what it would do. When you hear the word cancer, you just want it gone.

reply to post by newsoul


And that is the problem Newsoul. That is exactly the problem. That is why tens of thousands of woman go through cancer treatments unnecessarily. Some of them as serious as a double mastectomy.

That is why doctors are wondering if breast screening is doing as more, if not more harm than good!

You stated that no amount of money was too much to save a live. But for every life "saved" by breast screening, the price is also 6 to 10 woman who unnecessarily go through with cancer treatment, up to and including breast mutililation.

I have no answers - I am just pointing out the facts.

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


I do see your point and it is valid. But in order to know if the cancer is invasive or not requires, first off, knowing that it is there. And second, a biopsy. If a woman had a routine screening and the doctors decided that there was indeed something there, I don't believe they should just watch it for 6 months to a year. What if it is indeed invasive and nothing was done about it. To many possibilities for error.

reply to post by newsoul


I think what the doctors are trying to tell us Newsoul is that because of newer treatment methodologies, the risk of waiting six months or a year to see what the tumor will do on its own are far less than they were 20 years ago. In short, 20 years ago, treatments for advanced breast cancer are far more effective and breast cancer is no longer the death sentence it once was.

That is why I think we need to have this debate! You began speaking to me with your mind set in a rut. Breast cancer screening at any price. Treat all breast cancers aggressively. Your experiences and your fear made it impossible to you to see it any other way.

Now I already see that you are starting to question if that mantra is, in fact, the ultimate truth.

As I say, I don't have the answers but knowing what I know now....I would not automatically choose treatment. I would be asking a whole lot of questions first.

I think we need to spread the word on this and most of all - I think we need to make sure the cancer societies DON't control the debate. They have profit motive that has nothing to do with the good of our health and well being.

Tired of Control Freaks.

newsoul, thanks for sharing your personal struggle.

I lost a girlfriend to breast cancer in 1997, hurt more than anything else my whole life. I also lost my best friend to liver cancer in 2007. He had survived for 6 years after a 3 months to live prognosis. He was strong willed and was considered a "walking miracle" and it was actually appeared the morphine killed him in the end.

Soon after that (thanksgiving 2007) I learned I had type 2 diabetes and began reversing it myself (cured by mid 2008 and back to "normal food" ever since). Along that information quest and the health journey I learned how wrong some of his dietary choices were for his condition. Check my profile if that's of interest, I blogged it here along witth a video telling my story. Anyway, I also learned how much there is in common of a "healthy diet" for so many chronic health conditions.

There was a recent thread here from someone recently diagnosed with cancer. Many of us here offered a bunch of health-diet type recommendations (movies like "forks over knives", "cancer conspiracy", "fat sick and nearly dead", and so-on). If you've not studdied up on things like that I'd highly recommend it, not just for your own health but for those who look to you for guidance. And not to oppose modern medicine, but rather to extend it.

I was impressed seeing Alex Baldwin on David Letterman last night. He seems to be doing the right things with diet reversing "per-diabetes". One thing I can say that very few others seem to want to acknowledge is a diet-only recovery is possible and if maintained long enough can go all the way to 100% recovery. I've cured my condition and I'm thankful. I do eat carbs, drink beer, eat candy and so-on... what I don't do that I used to is drink 1000 calories of "fine" beer / day and a dozen cookies with milk before bed. Instead I'm enjoying over 50 lbs of reduced weight and much better health. I call it a "fountain of youth". My youtube song on that via link rather than embed so-as not to be too off-topic: It's a Fountain of Youth. And if interested, check my profile for the Type-2 diabetes reversal thread with my video-story on it.

reply to post by reitze


Interestingly enough, I read your post the very day that you created it. I am always inspired when people choose to turn their lives around through diet and exercise. I admire your conviction.

I must confess, I am a surgaraholic!!! lol Since being diagnosed with breast cancer, I have learned that sugar feeds cancer and I have cut down significantly.

Sorry to be off topic to the op.

reply to post by newsoul


Feel free to discuss whatever you please Newsoul. I think I have done everything I can to ring the alarm bells on this one.

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


I know that I am frustrating you. I'm sorry, I honestly don't mean to.

Breast cancer isn't the death sentence that it used to be because more women are finding it sooner.
They are finding it sooner because more women do breast self exams, when they feel something they go to the doctor to have it checked out. Breast cancer treatment hasn't really changed that much in 30 years, so the only explaination for more survivors has to be earlier detection.