You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #93: I don't' think that's been a part of any of the studies, however, [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
JenniferJuniper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-20-09 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #88
93. I don't' think that's been a part of any of the studies, however,
It does all come down to money. The mammography industry alone is a multi-billion dollar one. And the breast cancer treatment industry? Can't imagine.

The over-diagnosis is related in large part to the sensitivity of mammography (MRIs can be even more sensitive. I know very little about thermography). More cancers are found and treated as a result of rigorous, yearly screening. A very few women's lives are indeed actually saved by non-symptomatic mammography screening, but far more are being treated for a condition that will never kill them, indeed if never detected they may well have died of old age never knowing of it's existence. Here's a chart that helps illustrate. It's staggering to think that of 1,000 women screened over 10 years, only one will actually have her life saved by those years of screening. We don't know what happened to the 2 - 10 who were treated needlessly, but no doubt some were quite seriously, perhaps fatally, harmed. And other studies say the over-diagnosis rate may be over 50%.

"In an effort to provide physicians and their patients with a "balance sheet" of the harms and benefits of mammography, Dr. Welch included a tabular display along with his editorial. The credits and debits are for every 1000 women undergoing annual mammography for 10 years starting at the age of 50 years.

1 woman will avoid dying from breast cancer

2–10 women will be over-diagnosed and treated needlessly

10–15 women will be told they have breast cancer earlier than they would otherwise have been told, but this will not affect their prognosis

100–500 women will have at least 1 "false alarm" (about half these women will undergo biopsy)."

http://cancerology.blogspot.com/2009/07/breast-cancer-overdiagnosed-with.html

I'm not anti-mammograms. But I'd give serious consideration before getting involved with routine asymptomatic mammography screening. Seek and ye shall find. Unfortunately, we cannot differentiate between what needs to be found and what does not. And that's were the money needs to be going.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC