Interesting! I do see your point, and had not thought about routine screenings in this way before...thanks for this new perspective.
My thought still is: this screening can DETECT cancers and tumors early. I understand you are saying that some tumors may not need to be detected (some regress on their own and do not need treatment). However, some breast cancer DOES need treatment, and mammograms DO detect tumors earlier than any other method. Early detection is key in survival rates.
I understand your logic, but here are some helpful statistics from the CDC:
- "In the United States, incidence of breast cancer has decreased significantly by 2.2% per year from 1999 to 2005 among women."
- "In the United States, deaths from breast cancer have decreased significantly by 1.8% per year from 1998 to 2005 among women."
Your point about the mortality will likely be that due to overtreatment, it makes sense there are less deaths from breast cancer. But, overall, isn't this a good thing?
I'm curious about the "overtreatment"-- without either of us going to extremes to prove our point. We can agree there is likely overtreatment for false positives. Do you have research that says what type of "overtreatment" this includes? Are we talking about a few more doctors office visits, an extra non-invasive test?f I believe you pointed out that some women will lose their entire breast when medically unnecessary...can you show me where this is proven (I find it difficult to believe). How many overtreatments are invasive and severe, vs. non-invasive and merely inconvenient? (and, we can both agree they can be stressful...a range of "concerning" to "psychological distress", dependent on the treatment received).
Just the mere fact of receiving a false positive, again, most women know this is the reality of our current medical system, does not warrant a clear cut case for me to stop the advice for women to receive mammograms that could potentially be beneficial. Abnormal test results can be a "norm", and the implications are thoroughly discussed by any reputable doctor with their patient (primarily that most abnormal results are benign).
Comment Reply
Interesting! I do see your point, and had not thought about routine screenings in this way before...thanks for this new perspective.
My thought still is: this screening can DETECT cancers and tumors early. I understand you are saying that some tumors may not need to be detected (some regress on their own and do not need treatment). However, some breast cancer DOES need treatment, and mammograms DO detect tumors earlier than any other method. Early detection is key in survival rates.
I understand your logic, but here are some helpful statistics from the CDC:
- "In the United States, incidence of breast cancer has decreased significantly by 2.2% per year from 1999 to 2005 among women."
- "In the United States, deaths from breast cancer have decreased significantly by 1.8% per year from 1998 to 2005 among women."
Your point about the mortality will likely be that due to overtreatment, it makes sense there are less deaths from breast cancer. But, overall, isn't this a good thing?
I'm curious about the "overtreatment"-- without either of us going to extremes to prove our point. We can agree there is likely overtreatment for false positives. Do you have research that says what type of "overtreatment" this includes? Are we talking about a few more doctors office visits, an extra non-invasive test?f I believe you pointed out that some women will lose their entire breast when medically unnecessary...can you show me where this is proven (I find it difficult to believe). How many overtreatments are invasive and severe, vs. non-invasive and merely inconvenient? (and, we can both agree they can be stressful...a range of "concerning" to "psychological distress", dependent on the treatment received).
Just the mere fact of receiving a false positive, again, most women know this is the reality of our current medical system, does not warrant a clear cut case for me to stop the advice for women to receive mammograms that could potentially be beneficial. Abnormal test results can be a "norm", and the implications are thoroughly discussed by any reputable doctor with their patient (primarily that most abnormal results are benign).
thanks for the discussion
August 2, 2009 - 2:01pmThis Comment
Reply