New Book Questions Mammography
 

About six months ago a report on an "accidental" experiment in the effectiveness of mammography was published. In populations in Europe that were remarkably well matched in everything but when they started routine mammography, there was no difference in overall survival. Deaths from breast cancer went down in all of them. It was from better treatments, not from earlier detection. Now there's a book that examines other studies that claim a substantial benefit, and concludes that they are wrong. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...ed?INTCMP=SRCH

Re: New Book Questions Mammography
 

I wonder about the differences between countries in what is done upon a questionable mammogram finding. I also wonder if different screening methods (digital mammo, MRI, PET) might be better.
I guess the underlying thought here is that it doesn't benefit survival if you catch a cancer before it's visible or palpable.
One of the things about studies like this..or rather the conclusions.. that concerns me is that it kind of assumes better treatments of today/tomorrow won't derive benefit from earlier detection though we don't have stats to know that. For instance, vaccines or immuno therapies seem to be an earlier the better therapy.

Re: New Book Questions Mammography
 

Re: New Book Questions Mammography
 

The strictly size approach seems to not show the whole picture. Was reading the other day that suggested a small tumor that has lymph involvement might be more aggressive than a larger indolent tumor that is apparently localized.
Well..neoadjuvant therapy is gaining steam and may be making lumpectomy more applicable. Again...early treatment in other countries may be different.

Re: New Book Questions Mammography
 

For me, what is missing is mention of any calculation estimating how many cancers are generated by the exposure to radiation for each cancer that is detected.

I would be interested in a study done on women who get every recommended mammogram vs women who get none, to know what the incidence is for each group.

Thanks for the post.

A.A.

Re: New Book Questions Mammography
 

Debbie, Rich, and Angel, thanks for your comments. They are all good points.

The not knowing what to DO with early detection is huge. And not knowing how to keep it from metastasizing, or to cure it once it does. Far too many people get to stage iv, then it's incurable, so sooner or later you will die from it. The early detection narrative finds this truth to be inconvenient, and it tends to get buried.

The article says that the author accuses the mammography industry of falsifying data and hiding facts. In any event it is a blunt and inefficient tool, and we need to do better.

Re: New Book Questions Mammography
 

Mine happened to be found by mammogram.

But "outside the box" thinking made me realize also that we sort of have a linear tendency when we have a local "recurrence" or second tumor locally, to just assume it had nothing to do with our repeated rads exposures. It makes me wonder why no one ever mentions that possibility in terms of analyzing the pro's and con's of mammography.

A.A.

Re: New Book Questions Mammography
 

"stage iv, then it's incurable, so sooner or later you will die from it."

Thankfully not always. Steph..Andi..MamaCZ...you

Re: New Book Questions Mammography
 

I hate to bring this up but medical research (in general) is widely viewed by academicians as being some of the easiest work to get published. Most medical researchers (certainly not some of the brilliant full-time medical researchers we see and hear at the major conferences) do not have a great deal of research training (that is, their degrees are NOT research degrees like Ph.D.s). I have seen statistics awhile ago on rejection rates for say psychology journals (on average) and medical journals and you don't want to know about these. Most doctors who conduct research will be very upfront and talk about their lack of training in research design and analysis.

Re: New Book Questions Mammography
 

@Rich, thanks for the encouragement, and the reminder about some of our long-term survivors. I appreciate it. But. . . . They call it "incurable" because it is. They don't know how to stop it. I'm grateful to be responding well to treatment for now, and of course I hope to stay NED. But no one can promise me that.

I want to be in a world where 98% of stage iv people reach complete remission and normal lifespan, not 2%. Just think. If that were the case, then more patients could take a "wait and see" approach to treatment at earlier stages. Less surgery. Fewer side effects. Less trauma. And there'd be no need for mammography, except diagnostically. You notice something, you get it checked out. If they find cancer they give you a pill or a vaccine--something targeted to your cancer's biology, and they kill it, not you. No lymphedema. No chemobrain. No foobs.

Karen Z, thanks for the point about medical research.

Re: New Book Questions Mammography
 

Hmm..a couple examples from the relatively small number of active members on the board and still the absolute "incurable" statement. The odds may be terribly harsh but there really appear to be cases where it is "cured". And that's in the previously much worse category of Her2+. for some, it appears to be a matter of using the right tool..need to get better at that...while adding to the toolbox.
But yeah..maybe different diagnostics (tumor markers, Circulating tumor cells or like) could catch things earlier than mammo and allow less drastic approaches. From what I can gather, we all have cancer(s) in us...just don't know about them clinically until they are grossly unregulated.

Re: New Book Questions Mammography
 

I do wonder about the reliability of mammography. My first diagnosis was made after I had pointed the lump to the technician. The next 4 years the new growth had been misread as 'scar tissue'... So I probably would have been better off if mammography was not used...