Quote:
Screening turns up lots of tiny abnormalities that are either not cancer or are slow-growing cancers that would never progress to the point of killing a woman and might not even become known to her. If a suspicious abnormality is found,
women usually get another mammogram or imaging test to better identify it and often a biopsy to determine if it is cancerous. If it is, most women have it treated with surgery, radiation, hormone therapy or chemotherapy, all of which carry risks for the patient.
|
Quote:
|
The scientific argument is that it is not worth taking such risks for the large number of women whose cancers grow too slowly to kill them
|
Well..that scenario, process and "science" would apply to all screening at any age. But..if a slow growing tumor is found in a young woman, it could be argued it has a greater chance of killing her since it has a greater head start. In fact, it is pretty well established that BC in younger patients tends to be the more aggressive types. More aggressive cancer, undetected..over a longer period of time. Hmmm.
I remember hearing this thinking about older women years ago. Now it's being played out at the other end of the age bracket.
That's a logical (I think) way to look at it. And it also fits with people's intuition and years of PSAs. Makes it a hard sell from both angles.
And yeah..mammography
is oversold in the sense that it also has significant false
negatives. I wonder how many women have taken false assurance from a negative mammo and stopped any self-exam. I forgot..those are unnecessary.
But..I'm glad it won't get run up the beancounter's flagpole. Might keep an eye on it anyway.