Stop Annual Mammograms, Govt. Panel Tells Women Under 50

[RamboLiberal]

Source: ABC News

An influential government panel of experts has issued new recommendations on what age women should get screened for breast cancer and how often. The new guidelines have set off a sharp debate over whether mammography screening done at younger ages and more frequently saves enough lives to justify the costs of overtreatment.

The United States Preventive Service Task Force announced Monday that it recommends against annual mammograms for women age 40 to 49 and women older than age 74 because, they say, the "harms" and risks of testing do not outweigh the benefits.

USPSTF still recommends doctors start screening all women over age 50, but with a mammogram once every two years instead of annually. The taskforce also recommended against teaching breast self-exams for all women.

Family doctors often abide by the task force's recommendations in their practices and insurance companies routinely turn to USPSTF, which is made up by a panel of independent medical experts, to guide coverage plans.

But the recommendations announced today, which contradict the American Cancer Society, has already pitted doctors, women, insurers and radiology groups in a fierce debate about who should get a mammogram and when.


Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/OnCallPlusBreastCancerNews/mammogram-guidelines-spur-debate-early-detection/story?id=9099145

[Raven]

1. My, my, my... a good friend of mine was 42 and had her first mammogram

and has just completed breat cancer treatments and is facing reconstruction. No way of knowing how long the cancer was in her breast and growing....

[Delphinus]

2. Why in the world would they

recommend AGAINST teaching breast self-exams?!

[TwilightGardener]

13. Safe, and free, and encourages women to be proactive and KNOW what their

breasts normally feel like--have no idea why this is being discouraged.

[Berry Cool]

18. Because if you do it too often, the changes in you breast are TOO gradual for you to even notice.

That's what my doctor told me. That's why she doesn't recommend them anymore.

[TwilightGardener]

75. My doctor still believes in them. I find these new recommendations weird

because if they want women to stop having so many mammograms (which is understandable, due the radiation exposure), then how else do you find something unusual if not for once-monthly palpation of the breasts? It's as if they're recommending NOTHING AT ALL for women aged 40-50, and I think that's detrimental.

[pitohui]

21. because a false positive can lead to amputation where it wouldn't have been necessary

one of my mom's clients had a lump (you do understand that MOST lumps are cysts, esp. in younger breasts)

she had a biopsy

the biopsy infected her with MRSA

she lost not only the breasts but her arm and both legs

you people who fantasize that "early testing" has no risks are living in a dream world

there are fates worse than death and living the rest of your life unable to walk and with only ONE limb is certainly one of them


the consequences of paranoia are extreme

i for one would rather die a little younger than need be than lose my limbs and my freedom

[JenniferJuniper]

50. Good point.

But also, all women should keep in mind that if the cancer you have is deadly and aggressive, it will likely kill you regardless of when it is caught. And if the cancer you have is of a slow growing nature, it likely won't kill you whether you ever find it or not. Mammograms cannot tell you which you have; if you are diagnosed, you will be treated. And treatment does cause harm.

Mammograms are truly a red herring of false security. If we could take all the money we spend on them and re-direct it to finding ways to diagnose AND distinguish types of cancers and also develop more effective methods of treatment for deadly cancers, we might get out of the holding pattern we are in and actually start making some progress against this disease.

[ArcticFox]

61. Not so good point.

If you have an agressive cancer and completely remove it, you're much better off than if you let it spread to other parts of the body.

They can tell prior to removing it how agressive it is likely to be, e.g., through needle-core biopsy.

[JenniferJuniper]

63. I can only suggest you look into the research

that is the basis for the changes in recommendations. Even The American Cancer Society is slowly backing away from touting the value of mammograms at any age. And that's a huge step for them.

No diagnosed cancer is "left to spread", regardless of result of any needle biopsy. That's the point. Many cancers will not spread significantly over the years or will grow slowly. A large percentage of women (I don't have the number handy but I believe it's around 35%) who are autopsied after dying from other causes died with breast cancer they never even knew they had. And the numbers simply do not support the notion that "catching a bad cancer early" will save your life. If the statistics are properly weighted and lead time biases are removed, the death rate for breast cancer has been remarkably stable over the decades. Decades of nearly universal asymptomatic mammography screenings have had little or no impact on the death rate. No doubt this is due in large part to the fact that we still really do not have good methods for treating the dangerous cancers no matter when they are diagnosed. So we treat the less harmful ones picked up on routine screenings that weren't going to kill the patient anyway and claim great success. Half the women I know seem to be breast cancer "survivors". And yet the same rate of women are dying every year.

I suggest anyone who is really interested in learning about the manner in which the statistics have been misread and biased in favor of mammography start with the Danish study which was released in late 2001. This was an extensive analysis of the manner in which data had been collected and analyzed by other studies over decades. No one has been able to debunk it thus far, and as such, you will most certainly see a shift away from mammography over the next 5 - 10 years. And in the meantime, we should be demanding far better tools and more effective treatments.

[ccinamon]

70. +1...excellent explanation for some of my thoughts on breast cancer...

for years I've wondered why the breast cancer rates were actually going up....when I was in school 35 years ago, I remember the ratio somewhere around 1 in 10-12 (because I didn't know 10+ women and was glad no one I knew would get the evil breast cancer - ok, so in high school, I didn't have well-developed thought processes!) and now the rates are about 1 in 7 (and I know 3 women who have been through breast cancer in the last 30 years)...when breast cancer started to be more common, that is when I decided that mammograms might be actually triggering the cancer cells to grow.

Over the past 15 years, I have done mammograms every 3 to 4 years...not every year like my doctor wanted....I just had this gut feeling that mammograms were not as safe or reliable as everyone was claiming them to be. Never did the self-examines monthly either...since they are slow growing, you wouldn't noticed it, but the doctor would.

I'm glad I did not get mammograms every year...I knew it wasn't necessary and it's nice to know that medical science is finally catching on to that fact.

[kiranon]

82. But there is no way to tell which breast cancer will kill you and which will not.

The answer is not to ignore breast cancer assuming nothing will go wrong in one's 40s but to continue to find breast cancer and deal with it. There is something fundamentally wrong with these new statistics. To discourage self examination and to say women in their 40s do not need mammograms is insanity and for many a death sentence. It also advises no mammography for older women past a certain age which is also cruel. If so much is not known about breast cancer, why are the recommendations to do nothing? Let women die this says to me and I am a breast cancer survivor whose cancer was found through mammography. There are lies, damm lies and statistics.

[ArcticFox]

60. What?

Why don't we just close the hospitals then, if this threat of MRSA is so great.

Young women should just let lumps be? You feel something when you're 28 and you're supposed to wait until when exactly to see what it is?

[TwilightGardener]

73. What happened to your mom is tragic, but is also unusual--

I'm talking strictly about the recommendation against BSE--not about mammograms, which have good and bad points. There is nothing wrong with women inspecting themselves and familiarizing themselves with their normal breast tissue every month. Are we going to teach men to stop examining their testicles now? Are we going to teach people to stop checking moles? It makes no sense.

[goclark]

102. I had the opposite result

I had a Biopsy is the 70's at 3o years old.
I was terrified!

It was negative.

I am now in my 60's.

[superconnected]

76. It's all right here

"I hope that the insurers will change reimbursement, because it is probably the only way that women will be spared the extra radiation exposure of too many mammograms," Love said. "Since our system pays the radiologist, hospital or mammography center and biopsying surgeon by the more they do, there is no incentive for this to come from the medical profession."

It should be the womans choice to get an exam and she should be able to be refunded. This woman - Dr. Love - is on the dole for the insurance companies.

[Indydem]

3. WTF?

Is this the start of some kind of rationing BS that the government is trying to play a game with?

There is no such thing as "overtreatment" of a simple test that can catch a dreadful, terrible disease such as breast cancer.

Probably a panel made up of men under 50 who know of no one personally with the disease.

The government would be better off to take the salary of these pinhead assholes and pay it into breast cancer research.

[kestrel91316]

15. It's the insurance companies who HAVE BEEN RATIONING CARE FOR YEARS.

[BREMPRO]

45. this is not an insurance industry recommendation

it's an independent panel of health care experts that make comparative effectiveness research to determine best practices. Their recommendations are based on rigorous scientific study. This kind of research can reduce health care costs for all of us without reducing quality. More health care is not always better health care.

http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstfab.htm

[Le Taz Hot]

72. Any idea where their funding comes from?

If there's even a whiff of insurance monies here . . .

[BREMPRO]

88. From HHS- all public federal tax funded as far as I know

but i may be missing something. any insiders here?

[Berry Cool]

19. Yes, there IS such a thing as "overtreatment" when it comes to breast cancer.

Do some reading. "Catching" breast cancer doesn't equal "curing" breast cancer. It depends on the type of breast cancer. Don't fall for the lie that it's always lifesaving to catch it early. It's not. Besides, whatever you catch has already been there for likely on 10 years.

We do need more breast cancer research...but there's a growing body of medical literature saying that the "get your mammogram" message has been overkilled lately. It's not just insurance companies trying to deny care.

[woundedkarma]

4. Point out a quote...

"Family doctors often abide by the task force's recommendations in their practices and insurance companies routinely turn to USPSTF"

In other words.. they were probably paid to do it so the insurance companies don't have to pay for the mammograms.

[MessiahRp]

5. +1

That seems like the most plausible explanation. I wonder what other treatments they have wanted stopped in recent years that might have flown under the radar.

Rp

[enlightenment]

7. I'll point out another:

"These new recommendations are long overdue. Most countries do not support mammography screening under 50 and do it every other year after 50 in their government-sponsored screening programs," said Dr. Susan Love, founder of the Dr. Susan Love Research Foundation.

There are clearly some in the medical community who think the recommendations should be changed.

[Dan]

92. Well, my thoughts for what it is worth

Ladies, if you ignore the risk of breast cancer - you might die.

Now, when will men get a study on detection/avoidance of prostate cancer advising us to wait until we are 50?

[enlightenment]

94. Hyperbole doesn't help.

No one is suggesting women should 'ignore' the risk.

[Vidar]

14. Good call.

[curlyred]

6. the idea is that too much radiation

may actually increase a woman's chance of developing breast cancer. I believe that further details about this include the caveat that a woman's family history needs to be considered.

[kimmerspixelated]

9. Exactly right.

Also the act of smashing breasts can bring on a false reading when a small cell changes and moves around, which is why Thermography is the best alternative. No radiation and clearer more accurate results, plus comfort. However, skilled Thermographers are not found everywhere. A woman might have to drive a ways.

[K8-EEE]

17. LOL! I'm 49 and have been getting them every other year

I HATE all the freak outs call backs and false positives and I worry about too much radiation. Honestly I know the lectures I'd be in for if I ever admitted coming to this conclusion so I just always act like "oops did I miss a year? Oooh sorry my bad" AND NOW IT TURNS OUT I WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG? Ironic!

Naturally, I could have been diagnosed with it my first mammo at age 40 I suppose but sometimes intuition is correct. I get kind of annoyed when people act like whatever they recommend is good for EVERYBODY.

[ccinamon]

78. yep....always best to trust your instincts!

as I posted above...I had the same type of thoughts the past 15 years or so.

[JenniferJuniper]

64. This really isn't about radiation, though.

The shift to age 50 for the first mammogram is based on the fact that pre-menopausal breasts are difficult to screen due to their density, combined with the fact that it's an older woman's disease for the most part. And the broader question about the overall value of mammograms relates to the problem of over diagnosis and the fact that the death rate for breast cancer has remained stable, despite decades of routine screenings. Because of it's sensitivity (post-menopause, especially), it's the screening itself that increases your odds of being diagnosed with cancer, not the radiation from the test. And that's where the over-diagnosis part comes in.

Radiation causes cancer, of that there is no doubt. But we are exposed to radiation all the time - in the environment, when we get our teeth cleaned, when we break our ankles. It's better to avoid it if possible. However, I wouldn't avoid a mammogram for fear of some additional radiation - IF, like that x-ray for my broken ankle, I thought the test was necessary. But I personally do not see that routine, asymptomatic screening is of value and therefore would only consider one if I had symptoms.

[elfin]

8. This counter-intuitive recommendation is due to -

recent study results. I don't have a link but I do know it was in the NYTimes and other outlets. Apparently, some medical professionals think that some suspicious sites are so negligible that they can resolve themselves into benign situations all on their own. But what if they don't?????

It makes NO sense at ALL, given my own anecdotal observations of family and friends who have been stricken before that age.

Earlier studies even cast doubt on the efficacy of self exams. Also bogus in my opinion. Both of my sisters found theirs before their yearly mammos were due and got a jump on treatment.

I want to know who paid for these 'studies" -- insurance companies who don't want to cover the exams??

I will advise any women friends under 50 to save and pay for their own mammos given my experiences. This is absurd.

[kimmerspixelated]

10. Why not suggest Thermography, instead?

Self- exams should always be perfectly fine as well.

[pitohui]

22. your friends who were stricken before that age were stricken because of the radiation

i studied physics

there is no safe level of radiation to shoot into fatty tissue, NONE

your friends/family were given the disease because they got a mammogram at an age when it's unsafe to do so -- and then they thanked the giver of the disease for saving them

sad

[Pavulon]

52. I disagree. Radiation exposure from background

is more significant. Lots of things are radioactive. Especially for frequent fliers. I would ask you post something from an accredited source to back that claim. As following it could cause the user death. People have meen exposed to thousands of times the levels of a normal xray add lived long lives after criticality events.

[ArcticFox]

57. I'm pretty sure you're right

I don't know exactly what a mamogram has in terms of energy or intensity, but I'm pretty sure you get similar effects just by walking around in the sun, or having your cell phone in your pocket.

[ArcticFox]

55. You studied physics?

Did you do the math on this one? What is the increase in probability of getting breast cancer in 10 years from having one mamogram? Ten?

From your assumption about my wife posted below, I must believe that the fact that you studied physics says little about your ability to reason.

[ArcticFox]

58. One more thing

If it's so unsafe to put radiation into fatty tissue, why is it so common to fight breast cancer by intensely x-raying the entire breast? Why did our oncologist explain that this is relatively safe because the x-rays are aimed so that they ONLY go through the fatty tissue?

Where are you getting your information? Where did you study physics? Are you a rocket scientist? An astronomer? An electronics whiz?

[kiranon]

84. Please cite research that supports your assertion that young women's breast cancer is

caused by radiation from mammograms.

[Techn0Girl]

11. From the International Journal of Health Services...

From International Journal of Health Services

http://www.preventcancer.com/patients/mammography/ijhs_mammography.htm

"Mammography screening is a profit-driven technology posing risks compounded by unreliability. In striking contrast, annual clinical breast examination (CBE) by a trained health professional, together with monthly breast self-examination (BSE), is safe, at least as effective, and low in cost. International programs for training nurses how to perform CBE and teach BSE are critical and overdue. "

[ArcticFox]

12. Breast self-exam likely saved my wife's life

She's 31. Had she not found a lump, we would have had a second child. The hormones flowing with a pregnancy would have accellerated the tumors' growth. We were lucky she caught it at stage 1 - another pregnancy could have let it spread through her body.

Being involved with this has opened my eyes to the large number of young (20s and 30s) women diagnosed with breast cancer. The recommendation should be for EARLIER mamograms, not later. Maybe every two years would do, but they should start at 25 or 30. Alternatively, they should recommend MRI at a younger age (which I understand do not involve a dose of radiation).



I am astounded by the USPSTF. To recommend against self-exams is just plain crazy.



Aren't younger women worth saving more than the older ones? They've got more life to live. They've got more people depending on them. They've got more time for the cancer to kill them. These recommendations are backwards.

I would like to know how many of those "influential" government experts have ties to the insurance industry. Obviously, the only costs that industry would see is the cost of testing for and fighting cancer (our insurance company paid over $50,000 just for the double mastectomy).

I doubt very much they measured the cost of losing young women to this disease. Did they think of all the children who will end up living life without a mother? Did they include the child-care expenses incurred by fathers and the lost opportunity to succeed that all these children will have?

[Berry Cool]

20. 20- and 30-year olds should definitely not subject their breasts to decades of radiation.

It's true that when younger women get breast cancer it tends to be more aggressive and if they feel something's wrong, they have to be assertive about it. But really, breast cancer is still primarily a disease of older women, not younger ones. It's wrong to panic younger women into thinking it's highly common for them.

The problem with self-exams is that if they're done too often, the breast changes are too gradual for the woman to notice.

Oh, and is my life (age 48) less valuable than the life of some mom in her 20s, just because she's a mom and I am not? I beg to differ. No, I don't want to see children go motherless, I would hate to see that happen. But please let's not show bias in breast cancer treatment aimed at saving the young mom over all other women. When you say that, you sound like a member of the "Kill Grandma" squad the Repigs are trying to scare people with.

[tonysam]

49. +1,000 n/t

[ArcticFox]

53. And the alternative?

I seriously doubt that mamograms cause so much cancer. If they do, then there's always MRI. Would it not make sense to at least check younger women every four or five years, when 1 in 9 women get breast cancer in their lives?

And, yes: it would be infinitely more tragic if a young woman with a child were to die from breast cancer than an old woman who has nobody depending on her. At 48, I wouldn't necessarily place you in the latter category.

Yes. Other things being more or less equal, the life of a 20 year old with a child is more valuable than that of a 50 year old with no dependents. Many reasons. If you can't see them after living on this earth for 48 years, I don't think I can help you.

Are you saying that the cost/benefit ratio (to either the individual or to society) is exactly the same for providing the same care to a young person as to an old person, or even that it favors giving care to the old? That makes absolutely no sense.

Please don't try to intimidate me by saying I'm just what republicans fear. Those idiots would be afraid of their own shadow if it were good for business.

[tonysam]

62. That is the craziest idea I have ever heard

God forbid you are ever 50 years old. You know what your attitude is? It is called ageism.

It stinks.

[pitohui]

23. getting early mammograms CAUSED your wife's breast cancer

you don't understand and maybe it's too painful for you to understand but giving even "low dose" radiation into a young woman's breast causes the breast cancer they find


i come from a physics background, there is NO safe dose of radiation to pump into fatty tissue and to give mammograms to women in their 20s and 30s is to cause many many cases of breast cancer that would have otherwise never occured


notice how you NEVER hear of a woman dying of breast cancer discovered 'too late' when she's 30? it's always how "we found it" when she was 30? she wouldn't have had it to find it if she hadn't been getting ill advised mamms at a too early age...

this isn't secret information

if you want to live to be 90, you don't start getting mammograms at 40 because that's 50 years of exposure

if you want to live to be 50, you sure as shit don't start getting them in your 30s barring an extraordinary family history

i'm sorry for what happened to your wife but i don't want it to happen to others in the future just to preserve your wife's feelings

[ArcticFox]

51. God, you people are callous

FYI, she never got a mamogram until after finding the lump.

[Demit]

67. You're the one who rates the value of women's lives depending on their age.

What a shitty way you think. And you accuse other people of being callous? Does your wife know what you'll think about her when she's old and not useful to you anymore?

[ArcticFox]

79. It's nothing new.

People's value is rated every day based on their age. One example of where this happens is in a lawsuit for wrongful death. The longer you have to live, the more value you have, the more you can produce and provide for your family and to society.

It's not like I came up with the idea. It's just a fact of life.

[Demit]

86. You should be ashamed of yourself. As if lawsuit determinations are the same as social values.

The point of those lawsuits is to decide the practical matter of how to fairly compensate survivors. Not to compare people side by side and decide who has the better right to live! You truly shock me. You are a soulless man. You are empty. And one day you will be old.

[ArcticFox]

99. So much passion!

But I see no reasoning as to why an 80 year-old has just as much value to society as a 20 year-old. My reasoning is, in fact, directly in line with the reasoning of the study and recommendations. They looked at classes of people according to age and on a gross (ie, population-wide) basis.

On that same gross basis, you must agree that the potential of people 50-60 to contribute to society is diminished by their being 10 years older than those 40-50. This is a mathmatical fact. The amount of this diminishment can be determined by looking at, among other things, life expectancy charts.

The study you support does exactly what you accuse me of doing - deteriming who has a right to live based on age. It found, essentially, that it's just not worth it to spend the resources to test younger women.

That is a slippery slope, because the same argument could be made for the next 10-year age group as compared to those ten years older than them.

[Pavulon]

54. You are posting medical advice with no data.

I have an engineering degree and have done work in the generation side of reactors. Many people live long lives after radiation exposure from both background and industrial routes. If you have a GE turbine you can post up harmonic analysis on bearings and I can guess how long until fails. Sound reasonable. No? hopefully the people here dont actually take things seriously.

[Goldom]

16. There is actually some scientific basis for this

Don't dismiss it as insurance companies just being cheap. It's controversial, but take a look at this article if you're interested.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2249

[EFerrari]

83. Why would a controversial finding be put out as policy?

[CatWoman]

24. kick

[mnbac1]

25. Gov: Women should skip mammograms in their 40s, get them every 2 years starting at 50

Source: AP

NEW YORK - Most women don't need a mammogram in their 40s and should get one every two years starting at 50, a Government task force said Monday. It's a major reversal that conflicts with the American Cancer Society's long-standing position.

Read more: http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/70224257.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUycaEacyU

---

Ok, this is really stupid that this comes out from a Government Task Force at this time when the right is claiming health care reform means rationing.

[Arkana]

26. The study is shit but has nothing to do with health care reform.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pnwmom]

27. They've had the data to support this for a long time. I only had one

in my forties because of what I was reading.

On the other hand, I didn't have any special risk factors.

[still_one]

39. My cousin didn't either, and she is alive today because of a mamogram. They can

take their data and shove it.

one critic of the study eloquently responded"

"The new advice was sharply challenged by the cancer society.

"This is one screening test I recommend unequivocally, and would recommend to any woman 40 and over," the society's chief medical officer, Dr. Otis Brawley, said in a statement.

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.

That stance "is essentially telling women that mammography at age 40 to 49 saves lives, just not enough of them," he said. The cancer society feels the benefits outweigh the harms for women in both groups.

International guidelines also call for screening to start at age 50; the World Health Organization recommends the test every two years, Britain says every three years.

Breast cancer is the most common cancer and the second leading cause of cancer deaths in American women. More than 192,000 new cases and 40,000 deaths from the disease are expected in the U.S. this year.

Mammograms can find cancer early, and two-thirds of women over 40 report having had the test in the previous two years. But how much they cut the risk of dying of the disease, and at what cost in terms of unneeded biopsies, expense and worry, have been debated."

[oldtime dfl_er]

28. That is so fucking wrong

I have a friend who was diagnosed with breast cancer ON HER FORTIETH BIRTHDAY. My sister in law was diagnosed at 44. My sister was diagnosed at 48, and admitted having her lump for at least two years before she had a mammogram. If she'd gotten a mammo at 46 she probably wouldn't have died.

This study is fucking irresponsible.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[robinlynne]

33. NO these are the same medical standards already adopted by health insurance plans a

long time ago. up to 50 once a year, after 50 every other year.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sandnsea]

35. Except this says up to 50 - never

after 50 every other year and don't worry about getting every little oddity biopsied because you might die of other causes anyway. That's in the report

I tend to agree that we don't need as many mammograms, but this report goes too far. And it is exactly what the right has been fearmongering over - panels that are going to decide health care instead of the doctor doing it.

And yes I realize insurance does it too, but we sure didn't need this breast cancer task force right now, especially one with no oncologist on it.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JenniferJuniper]

47. The American College of Physicians changed their recommendations

about 2 years ago, acknowledging the long-known reality that mammography is generally of little value to pre-menopausal women. And the American Cancer Society recently announced it would start shifting it's tone about the overall value of mammograms. (The statistical studies confirming the huge over-diagnosis problem can not be avoided any longer.)

Guidelines in many European countries have always been 50 or 55 for first mammograms. (It was 50 in the US for many years as well). Expect insurers to begin using age 50 over the next couple of years.

[robinlynne]

32. hang on. If you have a lump, you run to get checked. Otherwise, once every 2

years. Once I had a lump, turned out to be benign; but they checked every 6 months after that. After a year of no change, they put me back onto once a year now. And I'm only supposed to go every 2 years. I.E. IF you have a LUMP everything changes, immediately. Even a tiny undetectable lump like mine. So a mammogram every 2 years would catch a lump small enough to treat. After 50 we have less hormes, hence smaller chance of lumps developing.

[Raschel]

42. So sorry to hear of your sister. I was diagnosed with bc last year,

and I have to say that I wish I would have gone and had yearly mammograms, but I didn't because I was afraid of a false positive.

This is going to confuse so many women, it makes me sad and angry. Early detection is everything.

[oldtime dfl_er]

44. I'm sorry for your diagnosis

I'm glad you got a mammo when you did, and I hope you are doing well!!! The two women I know (sister in law and friend) are both cancer-free after treatment, and YES early detection IS everything.

HUGS to you!

[Raschel]

90. I'm doing great, thanks so much!

[JenniferJuniper]

46. No. It isn't irresponsible at all.

Solid statistical analysis of decades long studies indicates that early detection does little to reduce death rates.

What's irresponsible is telling women for decades that "early detection is the best prevention" and pushing mammograms as the way to save lives. It simply isn't true.

Mammography does indeed find small cancers. But the unavoidable conclusion is that it's finding many, many cancers that will not be life-threatening to the individual if never detected or treated. The over-diagnosis rate is likely in the 35 - 50% range. (And having had a cousin die of radiation-treatment related heart disease, the thought of so many women being unnecessarily treated with surgery, radiation, and chemo fills me with horror.)

Further, the opposite side of the coin is that mammograms do not "prevent" cancer in any way and they do not find the aggressive, life-threatening cancers soon enough for any currently available treatments to actually save very many lives. And of course, we still have no way of telling the slow-growing harmless/less harmful cancers from the killers.

In other words, they don't do much good either way. It is my hope we will see them phased out so focus, money and attention can finally be placed on finding treatments that truly do save lives.

[Robyn66]

85. The mammogram I had saved my life

I was 42 when the cancer was found. You are lucky you don't know what its like to have gone through breast cancer. Until there is a better alternative mammograms are necessary and this report is going to result in a lot of deaths.

[ArcticFox]

59. Agree

Right on.

[robinlynne]

30. My insurer (kaiser) put that into effect 8 years ago. I dont think this is new.

[demigoddess]

37. When doctors stopped giving Hormone Replacement Therapy to women

the numbers of breast cancer went down. And they have concerns that frequent radiating of the breast from mammograms are making more breast cancer. Also smoking has had an effect on breast cancer with so many more people not smoking they expect smaller number because of that.

As to the guy mentioning women having breast cancer at 40 or less there are some people who will get things at a much younger age than usual. I had cataracts in my 40s, when you normally get it in late sixties or seventies, I had colon cancer in my fifties when normally you would have to be in your sixties or seventies. Not one of my relatives have had these kind of things. But otherwise I am healthy as a horse in many ways. My hair is still mostly brown and I look great!!!

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[still_one]

38. A mamogram saved my cousins life and a friends life, and they both didn't have a history

of breast cancer in the family

It is bullshit, along with self-examines aren't necessary

I wonder if this group was also involved in the financial bailout?

Gee, maybe they will get insurance companies now to deny coverage for mamagrams, prostate exams, and colonoscopy

Think how much they will save

[mnbac1]

41. Gov: Women should skip mammograms in their 40s, get them every 2 years starting at 50

This thread has been combined with another thread.

Click here to read this message in its new location.

[harvey007]

43. Check this out

http://bcaction.org/

[tonysam]

48. You can read the report by the panel right here

Annals of Internal Medicine

[Rhiannon12866]

56. My doctor told me

That it's difficult to read mammograms of women under 50. That's what I was told after I had a mammogram, said that I was too "dense." He said that some countries don't do mammograms of women under 50, for that reason. :shrug:

[SoCalDem]

65. If you don't have to insure women aged 51-64, you can save a ton of money

and there will be many more women dead from breast cancer before those ages.. for insurance companies, it's a no-brainer...but whaddayawannabet that the female members of rich folks & insurance executives will still get their yearly mammograms at 40..

[Vidar]

66. Said panel needs to be fired.

[Prometheus Bound]

68. It's about time!

[Vinca]

69. Is there anything other than women's health care on the chopping block?

Just wondering. We always seem to be first in line.

[sandyj999]

71. Medicare will only pay for a pap test every two years........

so guess where the mammogram is going? I believe the government looks upon us as non-contributing members of society but rather a drain. So not allowing us to be screened yearly is a way of elimination. Sorry to be such a cynic but this is what I have learned.

[Coventina]

74. Unbelievable. Unless they are going to substitute alternative tests

like ultrasound.

I've been getting ultrasounds & mammograms since my 20s, because I have chronic breast disease. I've had numerous biopsies, etc.

Now I'm just supposed to quit because of my age? Because I'm not fifty yet?

Bull!!!!!!

If my insurance company starts refusing to pay for my screening because of this report, I am going to flip out.

But I guess my life is statistically insignificant, so I'm not worth saving.

At least, that seems to be the attitude among these "scientists" and several of the posters around here.

[SnakeEyes]

80. Eh, I wouldn't be that concerned

I think we are more likely to see changes to coverage from the government programs such as Medicare, as the previous post mentioned about pap smears, than by insurance companies unless they all illegally collude and decide to drop it at the same time. If one stops covering the other companies will see increased business. This is not covering someone that one might need at some point, it's someone that is done regularly. It's a guaranteed source for them. Big difference.

[Coventina]

93. That whole idea of "competition" is a lie. I could not get insurance

privately from ANY company on my breasts while I was in college. I know, because I tried. Every insurance company I called would insure the rest of me, but not my breasts because I had a prior history of tumors.

So that whole line about "the other companies will see increased business" is a bunch of baloney.

[SnakeEyes]

95. Ummm...

That's why reform is being pushed to make them accept pre-existing conditions.

But let's tackle "competition" from a pre-reform view. It's not a lie and would still exist but would occur when other companie see increased business from those without a pre-exisitng condition that the company will accept.

[Coventina]

96. Maybe "competition" exists in your fantasy world, but not in the real one

where I live.

[SnakeEyes]

100. Then you don't understand Econ 101

It's pretty simple. It's me that is in the real world and you in fantasy world. What color is the sky in your world?

[Coventina]

101. Except that I was actually out there trying to get insurance, and no company

would sell it to me. That's what is known as the "real world".

The principles of Econ 101 don't always apply to the real world. Once you grow up you will find that out in a hurry.

[superconnected]

77. Dr. Susan Love - who did this research with her own research company

is a media whore. A perfect target for the Insurance Companies to make her a spokesman. She wrote a book on Breast cancer - a known publicity stunt that always makes someone an expert - write a book on any subject - heck regurgitate other books, and she has done tons of TV interviews. This is a Dr. with an active publicist who constantly gets her on TV for things like - general doctors questions, not just breast cancer.

Nothing wrong with knowing breast cancer screening can be harmful but there's a whole lot wrong with her belief that insurance companies should change their re-embursment and "get it out of the medical field". It should be a womans choice to get those tests, not this media whore's.

One point for her being a gay mom but sorry, I give her no right to decide over my choice to get screened. People with high incidences of breast cancer in their family absolutely should be screened at any age anyway. And, for the ones caught early that may die anyway - so what, they can prepare for their family better if they know in advance.

[SnakeEyes]

81. Frankly, I don't see the controversy

This is precisely what many of us have been saying all along, it's what President Obama campaigned on and promoted as we began the health care reform debate. Did you all just parrot what you heard because it sounded good or did you do the research? The facts that we have been talking about all along are:

There are many misconceptions about health care and practices that have led to greater costs for health care. It includes unnecessary and repetitive procedures. Breast cancer screening recommendations are just one example of exactly what we and President Obama have been talking about for the last year.

We need to shift focus to science and evidence based medicine. These recommendations represent a shift in the focus toward this. The changes are based on what this scientific panel has taken a look at and decided. Again, this is what Obama ran on all last year and what we've all been advocating for! THIS IS HEALTH CARE REFORM AT WORK! And it's without a bill signed!

The advisory boards that are already being setup, and will be ramped up after health care reform is FINALLY enacted, will be looking at every aspect of health care and the practices here in the US. This is just the beginning. The advisory boards will make more recommendations and changes that will cause "controversy." They are only controversial because people do not understand the reality of things. While there may be "outliers" and exceptions to every rule, and those who are will be affected by this, they are a tiny percentage of the population. It's more important that we have a system that operates based on what is most common so that we can lower costs and extend health care to all. These are the fundamental changes Obama was talking about, ran on all last year, and what we've all been advocating for!

This is what we have been wanting for a LONG time. This is one of the reasons we seek to elect progressives and voted for President Obama. It's why we support health care reform. Ultimately, it's why we want single payer. If we can some day eliminate the greedy insurance companies, and have only a government run program that operates based on advisory boards that use science and evidence based medicine, we can finally have the best health care system in the world.

Why are people objecting now that we are FINALLY starting to get what we want? Granted I wouldn't have started with breast cancer screenings, because of the way it will be portrayed, but it has to start somewhere!

If this isn't what you want, if you don't want a cheaper and more efficient health care system based on science and evidence based medicine then you really need to reconsider what you've been thinking and advocating for during the last year. The time is now! We are finally getting progress!

[Robyn66]

87. I didn't vote for women to die of cancer

[SnakeEyes]

89. That doesn't work here

It may stop a freeptard spewing their nonsense, since their ideas actually do kill people, but not a reasoned ideas or policy that doesn't.

You're responding based on what you think or what you've been told for a long time now. The government advisory panels will make the proper decisions for our health care (again, hopefully someday we have single payer!), not the greedy companies, based on science, research, historical analysis, and evidence. The question becomes: do you trust the government advisory panels and their science more or your own scientific knowledge?

I did poor in science classes. I'll trust them. Progressives rely on science and evidence.

Besides, even if this policy led to some non-detection... it would be DWARFED by the number of people saved by health care reform because they finally have affordable health care, the right treatments/procedures/exams for most people are being done, and the system is more efficient and less wasteful for everyone else.

Last questions.. didn't you see many on the right, just a few weeks, try and argue that our health care is so much better than France/Canada/UK because of our cancer detection? What was the proper response? That we detect and treat so much more non-threatening cancers that create a burden on our health care/insurance system and it's due to all this repetitive screenings and tests. It all ties together! This is exactly the kind of thing we've been talking about for a long time. It's exactly what Obama talked about while campaigning and now as president. It's why the advisory panels were proposed!

If you still don't see it, then I guess you've got a lot of thinking to do.

[marshall]

91. It's a simple cost effective decision

In the long run it will help the greatest amount of people.

[Darth_Kitten]

97. But pay more for insurance.....

Got it. :(

[superconnected]

98. today the health secretary says don't stop.

"WASHINGTON – Women should continue getting regular mammograms starting at age 40, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Wednesday, moving to douse confusion caused by a task-force recommendation two days earlier."
.
.
"The task force has presented some new evidence for consideration but our policies remain unchanged," she said. "Indeed, I would be very surprised if any private insurance company changed its mammography coverage decisions as a result of this action."

"My message to women is simple. Mammograms have always been an important lifesaving tool in the fight against breast cancer and they still are today. Keep doing what you have been doing for years — talk to your doctor about your individual history, ask questions and make the decision that is right for you," Sebelius said.

In the meantime, she added, it is clear that more research is needed into ways to help women prevent and fight breast cancer.

The recommendations from the task force have left women across the country confused about which advice to take. It also quickly led to charges from opponents of changing health care policy that it is an example of what could be expected from government-managed care."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091118/ap_on_he_me/us_med_mammogram_advice