OT/ Gov. report on Breast Cancer Screening

estherz wrote: ........
Tumors disappearing??? I certainly wouldn't be able to live day by day knowing I have a tumor and not doing anything about it. I always thought cysts go away by themselves tumors not.

.......

There are two links in the posts above to articles about cancerous tumors that regress if left untreated.

If a tumor is found, there is a chance that this tumor would regress if left alone. But as I understand it at this point, we do not have the technology to determine which tumors will regress and which will continue to grow. So no one is suggesting you would "live day by day with knowledge of a tumor." You would have it treated with surgery and/or chemotherapy.

There is a parallel with prostate cancer. Many prostate cancers grow very slowly and the patient will die of old age before the cancer becomes a problem. Some patients have suffered needlessly from surgery and chemo. In the future there will be more "no treatment decisions" for prostrate cancer. This will be a good thing for the patients.

There was an interesting discussion in NPR today:

http://wamu.org/programs/dr/

Ho I am lmmo and I have breast CA invasive ductal CA. I had 4th routine mammo no family history a bilateral mastectomy and am 44by the way. I am undergoing very aggressive chemo because it is fast spreading. The mass was NOT palpable. So with new legislation I would probably have succomed to the cancer.


I am unable to log in but SLINKY knows who I am.

Guest wrote:Ho I am lmmo and I have breast CA invasive ductal CA. I had 4th routine mammo no family history a bilateral mastectomy and am 44by the way. I am undergoing very aggressive chemo because it is fast spreading. The mass was NOT palpable. So with new legislation I would probably have succomed to the cancer.

Fortunately this is not legislation. It was only a report by a panel of experts from the private sector and universities appointed by the government to make recommendations about preventive care. Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, was emphatic yesterday that federal government insurance programs will continue to pay for annual mammograms starting at age 40, as before, and she says that she very much doubts that any private insurance companies will change their policies on the basis of this panel's report.

Immo, best wishes to you for your recovery.

Although this panel's conclusion may not lead to immediate changes in policy, the controversy arising from it still illustrates how difficult it can be to formulate understandable recommendations for individuals based on statistical averages.

Today, the application of recommendations can vary according to how any one doctor-patient team understands them and agrees to apply them when considering options. That leeway is built into the present system, at least for many. But that leeway is the exact thing that opens the door to profiteering. And that is, I think, why the concept of 'cutting costs by eliminating unneeded tests and procedures,' even if it is always the right thing to attempt to do, remains a scary thought for those who worry about the inevitable future misapplications of findings such as these in the name of 'efficiency.'

One man's "wasteful practice" is another man's "option." You can't cut one without cutting the other, even if everyone agrees there is waste and inefficiency.

Or, then again, maybe I misunderstand the core issue.