One thing I wonder is that if they don't recommend mammograms until age 50 and above, at what age are they recommending the baseline mammogram? I'm still weirded out by this recommendation because of my mom having three instances of breast cancer BEFORE age 50 while having no prior risks for it. Shouldn't women still have a baseline mammogram at a younger age for comparison basis?
Instead of decreasing screening, what ought to be happening is better research and treatment for what comes after a positive mammogram. Not before. One very important lady in my life died many years ago when a mammogram could have saved her life; one very important lady's life is being saved right now because of one.
Women's health is NOT the area where industry and economics need to be searching for solutions. How about we quit researching ED for, oh, say two years, and use those billions of dollars to find less radical and more effective treatments for breast cancer, hmmm?
@SomeAuthorGirl: I don't think these two things are at odds. Breast cancer gets more research dollars than any other cancer in the world.
And there has been far more controversy on the screening for prostate cancer among men. I don't think this is necessarily an economic issue and I don't think it's necessarily a women's health issue. Most of our cancer screening is far less effective than we've been led to believe and it's about time we were better informed.
There will always be stories of people who have been saved through screening. There will be many more who go through unnecessary treatment that can itself cause future illnesses and even put them at risk for cancer. Fortunately, now that we know of the hereditary links of many cancers such as breast cancer, women who know they're at higher risk can get the earlier mammograms. This is a general guideline, not a commandment.
@jleigh: Which is why I'm saying that it's what happens after screening that needs better research, not before. I'm open to the fact that I see danger and conspiracy against women all through the health and political systems. But I also don't think I'm off base.
Just because we scientifically know more now about the genetic screening doesn't mean it's widely available.
The correct way to refer to a mammogram is actually "boob smashing." Plural is "boob smashings." As in "My mother and grandmother both had their annual recommended boob smashings last week."
At least from the NY Times article it appears that the 15% statistic is across all age groups (it'd be nice to see the reduction by age group, dudes)... and the vast, vast majority of that 15% reduction goes to women 50+...and it's women screened for 10 years...starting at what age?
If women are to make informed decisions about mammograms, the NY Times should at least try to understand and explain clearly the data they use.
Me and my radiologist can take care of my girls just fine, thanks. I'd rather have a false positive and get a biopsy than have them shrug and tell me it is too late.
@TheUptightMidwesterner: I agree with you completely. That being said, I think more women should be warned at biopsies can result in scar tissue which can feel like a lump. Not as a scare tactic, just as another piece of important information.
There is pretty conflicting data out there as to the value of mammograms for 40-49 y/os, and for self-exams. This has been a controversy in the medical community for years. Unfortunately, a lot of the big meta-analyses are of studies done in Europe on 97% white ladies, which is not necessarily applicable to the whole population of American women (which I brought up in a med school class, leading to an argument with an old white doc -- sigh). Anyway, the reason why studies like these are done is because doctors are trying to use reliable data to make policies and medical decisions (they call it "evidence-based medicine") -- sometimes the findings of these studies are counter-intuitive, but that's why they're valuable. Just because screening early seems to make sense to a doctor or a layperson doesn't mean that it translates to saved lives. I haven't read this particular study yet though, so I can't comment on the validity of their conclusions. #cancer
This is just stupid. I know I'm biased because of my mom having breast cancer, however, she had NO risk factors when she found a lump at age 42. No one in her family had breast cancer, she never smoked, she wasn't overweight, she ate well, didn't drink much. She found her lump doing a self-exam. She's now had three bouts of cancer.
I think the one death that they say is prevented for every 1,904 is more than "very little" benefit, especially to whomever that person's family is.
In essence, fuck you task force and your "findings". These are people and their lives you are talking about. #cancer
@Red-headed bookworm: Right on. This was my exact story this year at age 41. If I had followed their guidelines I'd be dead before my first mammogram. Thanks task force! Statistics are real people.
They just interviewed someone from the task force on the Today Show about this. She wanted to stress that not doing routine mammograms is not about saving money, but is rather a way to divert money to discover and implement more effective screening strategies. So, from now on every time an insurance company denies a 45 year old a mammogram because it changed its coverage based on this report, it is going to cut a check to medical research groups? Maybe it would be better to continue getting mammograms until there actually IS a better screening method. #cancer
From what I've heard, getting a mammogram is pretty painful, and assuming you have a false positive, it's a semi-invasive procedure, so maybe cutting back testing for those not at a higher risk could be a good thing. More testing does not always equal better medicine.
Of course, if every woman in your family has had breast cancer, this does not apply. #cancer
@jemandtheholograms: Not to mention that an invasive procedure on non-cancerous tissue can cause irritation that might lead to other problems. Or in my grandmother's case, every time she has a new doctor perform a mammogram they find a lump, that has been there for ages, and they insist they need to do a biopsy, and she has to insist that it's been there for 40 years and has never grown. It's a battle every time. Sometimes if cells are more likely to turn into cancerous cells, like benign tumor cells, irritating them can induce more growth. #cancer
@Blueberry26: Getting your boob squished doesn't sound like fun. I mean, I'll do it for the sake of my health, but if it's not really necessary, then count me out. #cancer
@LadySoprano is a Fat-Fighting Superwoman: This made me lolz, but also---interesting fact. No such thing as a false positive on a pregnancy test. My sister is a nurse who's worked in infertility for years, and has told me many times that, while you can get a false negative, it's pretty much impossible to get a false positive. #cancer
IRT self-exams: women DO know they don't work. At least this woman does. My gyn (who is awesome) already told me I don't need to do them unless I have pain. Of course, I see her once a year, and get a physical besides. I'm not sure we should be discouraging women who may not have regular health care from paying as much attention as possible to their bodies. #cancer
"For each case of cancer-related death prevented among women under 50, 1,900 women must be screened." Um, I guess I don't have a very good grasp of large numbers/statistics, but this seems like a reasonable "death-rate" to justify screening. What am I missing? #cancer
11/18/09
11/18/09
Women's health is NOT the area where industry and economics need to be searching for solutions. How about we quit researching ED for, oh, say two years, and use those billions of dollars to find less radical and more effective treatments for breast cancer, hmmm?
11/18/09
And there has been far more controversy on the screening for prostate cancer among men. I don't think this is necessarily an economic issue and I don't think it's necessarily a women's health issue. Most of our cancer screening is far less effective than we've been led to believe and it's about time we were better informed.
There will always be stories of people who have been saved through screening. There will be many more who go through unnecessary treatment that can itself cause future illnesses and even put them at risk for cancer. Fortunately, now that we know of the hereditary links of many cancers such as breast cancer, women who know they're at higher risk can get the earlier mammograms. This is a general guideline, not a commandment.
11/18/09
Just because we scientifically know more now about the genetic screening doesn't mean it's widely available.
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
If women are to make informed decisions about mammograms, the NY Times should at least try to understand and explain clearly the data they use.
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
I think the one death that they say is prevented for every 1,904 is more than "very little" benefit, especially to whomever that person's family is.
In essence, fuck you task force and your "findings". These are people and their lives you are talking about. #cancer
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
Of course, if every woman in your family has had breast cancer, this does not apply. #cancer
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
**Said with tongue in cheek** #cancer
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09