Reply #18: You have missed my point.

[JenniferJuniper]

"Yup, tell a person to sit tight, you may be the lucky one, your lump may be a cancer and it may be a low grade malignancy, and if we wait till the lump is bigger and it is one of the low grade cancers it."

No one is saying that. Even if up to 80% (the figures vary) of ductal carcinoma in situ will not be ultimately life-threatening, most women, of course, once diagnosed would not want to wait around and hope for the best. But what harm - both psychological and physical - is being done to the up to 80% that didn't need aggressive treatment?

Point one is that mammograms (and for different reasons, MRIs) are a lousy screening tool for many reasons which I won't further delineate here. But it's a billion dollar industry that is, as all profit-making businesses, looking to keep itself sustained. Hence the non-stop "early detection is the best prevention" propaganda.

Leading into point two - which is where we started - does early detection really as much good as claimed in the case of most breast cancers? Yes, lives are saved. But it's nothing along the lines of what the Cancer and Mammography Industries (and oh, yes, they are industries) would have us believe. And this must be balanced with an understanding of the harm that over-diagnosing and over-treatment can cause.

Just a few weeks ago, a new (and controversial) study found that up to 22% of breast cancers will resolve on their own. You can read about it here: http://www.medpagetoday.com/HematologyOncology/BreastCancer/11898

And finally, I completely agree with your statement "The decision to undergo treatment is also a very personal one and should be preceded by a detailed discussion of the alternatives, benefits, risks and rewards." But I reiterate that we should be demanding more. More focus on TRUE prevention. Better screening tools. And better information and education about the over-diagnosis scenario.