Canadian women get better, shorter treatment for breast cancer than American women
Source: thestar.com
When it comes to early-stage breast cancer, more treatment isn’t always better — that’s something Ontario experts already know.
But in the United States, a new study says two thirds of women who have had a lumpectomy are undergoing longer radiation therapy than may be necessary.
In contrast, two thirds of Ontario women undergo shorter radiation treatment — consisting of fewer but higher-doses — which has been shown to be as effective, more convenient, less costly and preferred by patients.
“(The Ontario rate) is terrific,” says the study’s lead author Dr. Justin Bekelman, assistant Professor of Radiation Oncology at the University of Pennsylvania’s Abramson Cancer Center.
Read more: http://www.thestar.com/life/2014/12/12/canadian_women_get_better_shorter_treatment_for_breast_cancer_than_american_women_study.html#
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
840high
(17,196 posts)my radiation. Wonder if increasing dose would make it even worse.
CTyankee
(63,901 posts)
LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)Not for profit. What a concept! Go Canada and continue sticking it to Cancer!!!
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)
cynzke
(1,254 posts)treatment equals money. The more you get, the more money they get.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)is perhaps, then, more uncomfortable. But that adds profit, that's the important thing.
Feral Child
(2,086 posts)a profit driven industry.
They milk each patient for the maximum profit.
My oncologist demanded that I go back into Chemo/Rad after my surgery because we had to interrupt due to the complications (Flagyl resistant C diff and MRSA) even though that would delay the reversal of my temporary ileostomy for four months.
Cancer and the after-effects of treatment are quite severe, extremely depressing. Living four more months w/ a bag of chyme and half-digested food on my belly was not tolerable. I refused.
3 times during treatment I dropped from my normal weight of 180 to 140-145. That 180 pounds was my weight when I graduated high school.
At 140 I was a sight to frighten children. Each time I had to be readmitted to the hospital due to near lethal dehydration. Dehydration at that level is incredibly painful. I had absolutely had enough of treatment.
Nearly four years after surgery I remain cancer-free, despite her prediction that I'd fatally relapse if I refused treatment. I do not regret my decision
840high
(17,196 posts)your body. I consented to radiation but turned chemo down. My oncologist kept insisting and I stood firm in my decision.
You've got to make decisions for yourself. BTW, chemo is much worse than radiation.
I was on FU5. The oncologist told me they all referred to it as "Fuck You 5" because it's so nasty.
840high
(17,196 posts)physician and I trusted his guidance. He said chemo not needed and I listened. I am sorry you went through so much. Hugs to you and all survivors.
hedgehog
(36,286 posts)whether or not you get a hysterectomy depends more on where you live than your actual physical condition. It's not that doctors in some areas are more greedy, it's that they do what their mentors told them to do, and they pass that information on. This is was the ACA put such emphasis on electronic record keeping. The goal is to strip identifying information, then compare treatments and outcomes.
I should mention - medical practice is also driven by information campaigns. My doctor told me that I was due for a mammogram. I told him, expecting a fight, that after careful reading I'd decided that a mammogram was not needed, he agreed. He made a comment to the effect that if he didn't offer the suggestion, people would be upset.
And of course - let us not forget pharmaceutical ads. I think some spread useful information while others just boost demand for product.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts).... for shareholders.