If I'd Followed This Advice, I'd Be Dead.

[DancingBear]

Here's the actual report:

http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf09/breastcancer/brcanrs.htm

And a discussion:

http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf09/breastcancer/brcanrs.htm

Note this disclaimer:\

Disclaimer: Recommendations made by the USPSTF are independent of the U.S. government. They should not be construed as an official position of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

 

[RitaE]

I had heard that the funds saved could go into breast cancer research to actually come up with better ways of early detection.

The funds saved -- so Aetna, since they won't be paying for my Annual Mammogram will be making an equivalent yearly contribution to the Komen Foundation?

Somehow I really really doubt that.

 

[Carly_Roach]

I think I want a study done to see if the radiation from the mammograms actually GIVE you breast cancer.

 

[ChrizJen]

I'm going to suggest that this was influenced by the insurance companies.

You've hit the nail on the head. That's exactly what it is.
It's the same as insurance companies influencing when patients are sent home after major surgeries. Women having mastectomies and being sent home sometimes less than 24 hours later with drainage devices still in place. All because insurance companies don't want to foot the bill. If we continue to let insurance companies dictate how we receive our healthcare, we'll continue to lose. Do you think insurance companies give a crap about our health and well being? It's a business, just like any other, and the only thing they're concerned with is the bottom line. Period.

 

[tink_lover]

This also was meant for those who have no history. Those with family history of breast cancer are still encouraged to get their regular screenings.

The majority of women newly diagnosed have no family history. I had no family history of bc when I had my first mammo at age 40 and underwent the lumpectomy. The women I know fighting bc are on dh side.

 

[DawnCt1]

The "new guidelines" are not about saving lives but saving money. The story made the front page of the Hartford Courant, and almost everyone in the actual "business" of saving women's lives, feel that the study's conclusions are idiotic. This comes down to dollars and cents and the conclusion that X number of dollars spent in detection isn't worth the Y number of lives saved. Its a disgusting conclusion.

 

[DawnCt1]

The majority of women newly diagnosed have no family history. I had no family history of bc when I had my first mammo at age 40 and underwent the lumpectomy. The women I know fighting bc are on dh side.

I "love" the part of the study that physicians should stop teaching women to do breast self exams. This is exactly how many breast cancers are detected. Ignoring suspicious lumps and foregoing mammograms will save a lot of money in the end because some women will be diagnosed when it is too late thus needing only hospice.

 

[OceanAnnie]

Whether it's insurance or the medical industry, when I read that article this morning I started wondering how many "urgent" or "necessary" procedures (that never used to be urgent or necessary) are now going to be deemed unnecessary because they won't be cash cows anymore under the new government medical plan?

I thought the same thing. I think this is a huge step backwards. I won't be following this advice. Sigh. I read that it was a, "government task force" making these recommendations. Maybe it is to save money on the new plans for the future. I wonder if the "new" health care package will enforce this and other "recommendations" that are sure to come.

I was very disappointed with this new development.

 

[kldmom2000]

I was SHOCKED to hear it this morning as well. First they tell us a couple of years ago that self-examination is useless and not to bother.... now this?!?!?!? In the last 2 years, I have had THREE very good friends diagnosed with breast cancer in their THIRTIES.... 2 of them felt a suspicious lump and had it checked out w/ mammos and the 3rd one went for her routine "35 year baseline" mammo which found the cancer..... My mother was diagnosed in Dec. last year with metastatic breast cancer @ age 57. Yes, it's over the age 50 requirement, but the cancer is throughout her body. I have been under the microscope by my surgeon since that time because of the family history (maternal grandmother died from breast cancer and Mom has it now). I've had abnormal mammos and "busy" breasts resulting in a biopsy and repeat mammos every 6 months and MRI's once a year... (I'm 36). I just think this is absolutely foolish....

 

[luvmy3]

You've hit the nail on the head. That's exactly what it is.
It's the same as insurance companies influencing when patients are sent home after major surgeries. Women having mastectomies and being sent home sometimes less than 24 hours later with drainage devices still in place. All because insurance companies don't want to foot the bill. If we continue to let insurance companies dictate how we receive our healthcare, we'll continue to lose. Do you think insurance companies give a crap about our health and well being? It's a business, just like any other, and the only thing they're concerned with is the bottom line. Period.

I thought the same thing. I think this is a huge step backwards. I won't be following this advice. Sigh. I read that it was a, "government task force" making these recommendations. Maybe it is to save money on the new plans for the future. I wonder if the "new" health care package will enforce this and other "recommendations" that are sure to come.

I was very disappointed with this new development.

OceanAnnie this is exactly what I am concerned about. While ChrizJen makes valid points, its only a matter of time until we will replace *insurance companies* with *gov't* in her post and it will still hit the nail on the head. I don't think it matters who is at the helm when it comes to these new developments and recommendations, someone's pockets will always get fatter while the patients will pay the ultimate price.

 

[DWGal210]

This makes me so mad.

I don't want to get political, folks; but this makes me VERY nervous.

I wonder when the Komen Foundation will come out and make a statement, or perhaps they have already. I would imagine they're ready to spit nails.

I wonder how many more women (and men!) would have to die each year before they would change it back to a mammogram each year. Disgusting - they should all be ashamed of themselves.

 

[DancingBear]

I think I want a study done to see if the radiation from the mammograms actually GIVE you breast cancer.

The recommendation itself states that the issue of unnecessary radiation exposure from mammograms is not a significant concern.

 

[pisco]

Just a little bit of mathematical reality to interject into this discussion. Here is a quote from the article the OP referred to:

"The task force advice is based on its conclusion that screening 1,300 women in their 50s to save one life is worth it, but that screening 1,900 women in their 40s to save a life is not, Brawley wrote.

This means that screening women in the current way in their 40's results in a rate of 0.05% lives saved and for women in their 50's a rate of 0.08%.

Seems to me that rather than getting upset about the panels findings and recommendations we should take them as a clear call to action to find more reliable detection methods so that we can look at success rates closer to 100%. Ultimately, isn't this what we all want to see happen? An end to breast cancer deaths?

IMHO, If the current methods are this ineffective then the issue isn't what women should or shouldn't be doing but what the medical and scientific community needs to do to devise more effective testing.

 

[DancingBear]

I understand the passion over this issue, but consider:

--Perhaps there would be some benefit to screening at an earlier age. Why not 30? Some decisions have to be made about the relative costs and benefits and what recommendation to make. (Note here I'm talking about the health costs and benefits--this panel's recommendations don't get into the dollar costs). Isn't it good that a recommendation is being made by an independent panel based on scientific analysis? Shouldn't this panel revise its recommendations if it thinks the science supports a change?

--There is a lot of suspicion here about the government or insurance companies saving costs. However, it seems though that if this was a poor recommendation and more women ended up receiving treatment at an advanced stage of cancer, no money would be saved. Also, why not be suspicious about the motives of providers who make money from having these tests done?

 

[DancingBear]

I wonder when the Komen Foundation will come out and make a statement, or perhaps they have already. I would imagine they're ready to spit nails.

They have issued a statement, and I'd say it's rather measured:

http://ww5.komen.org/KomenNewsArticle.aspx?id=6442451487

 

[The Mayor]

Anyone that listens to a government study should read up on psychiatric help too...especially now when government is trying to shove health care down our throats...can't wait to see what they come up with for prostate exams...any women would be wise to stick with what the American Cancer Society recommends when it come to cancer.

 

[crashbb]

Just a little bit of mathematical reality to interject into this discussion. Here is a quote from the article the OP referred to:



This means that screening women in the current way in their 40's results in a rate of 0.05% lives saved and for women in their 50's a rate of 0.08%.

Seems to me that rather than getting upset about the panels findings and recommendations we should take them as a clear call to action to find more reliable detection methods so that we can look at success rates closer to 100%. Ultimately, isn't this what we all want to see happen? An end to breast cancer deaths?

IMHO, If the current methods are this ineffective then the issue isn't what women should or shouldn't be doing but what the medical and scientific community needs to do to devise more effective testing.

You cannot divide the numbers and come up with a percentage to be used like that. The number will never be 100% (unless all the women being screened have breast cancer).

The low percentage is because most women under 50 do not have breast cancer, so the number of lives saved is small because most of the lives weren't in danger (and thus didn't need saving).

The percentage you want is the number of woman with breast cancer found at a late stage whose breast cancer would have been found at an earlier (i.e. treatable) stage had they undergone screening compared to the total number of late stage breast cancer cases. A good screening method would have this at 100% (or course, it was a very good screening method, there would be no late stage cancers, so the statistic would not be able to calculated in the first place).

I've actually been involved in a similar study (but in colon cancer). We looked at a (large) random sample of patients with colon cancer and compared the stage (at diagnosis) in those whose cancer was found from a screening colonoscopy versus those who were only diagnosed after symptoms showed up.

And I agree - it is about money.

 

[Maridw]

My mother & sister both had breast cancer. I had my first mammogram at 30. If I hadn't started having mammograms, they would not have found the cyst they removed in 96. I would also not know that I still have 1 cyst that has been aspirated twice in the past two years.

With the family history that I have, I will continue to have mammograms even though I am still under 50 (just, but still under 50). I also have a maternal uncle who had breast cancer.

If my mother had not started having mammograms before she was 50 they would not have found her cancer when they did.

I can't believe that this is being recommended. If does not matter how many people are subject to get breast cancer before the age of 50.

 

[DawnCt1]

Just a little bit of mathematical reality to interject into this discussion. Here is a quote from the article the OP referred to:



This means that screening women in the current way in their 40's results in a rate of 0.05% lives saved and for women in their 50's a rate of 0.08%.

Seems to me that rather than getting upset about the panels findings and recommendations we should take them as a clear call to action to find more reliable detection methods so that we can look at success rates closer to 100%. Ultimately, isn't this what we all want to see happen? An end to breast cancer deaths?

IMHO, If the current methods are this ineffective then the issue isn't what women should or shouldn't be doing but what the medical and scientific community needs to do to devise more effective testing.

Every woman could have MRI's but that is extremely expensive. I don't think that MRIs are what the "government task force" has in mind. Do you? The fact is, woman who are at risk for breast cancer due to history or genes often do have MRI's every other year and their insurance companies pay for this.

 

[DawnCt1]

I thought the same thing. I think this is a huge step backwards. I won't be following this advice. Sigh. I read that it was a, "government task force" making these recommendations. Maybe it is to save money on the new plans for the future. I wonder if the "new" health care package will enforce this and other "recommendations" that are sure to come.

I was very disappointed with this new development.

I am sure that is exactly the plan. Just like men will have the more radical, less expensive prostate surgery, despite its attendant side effects.