1 in 3 breast cancer patients in national screening programs is unnecessarily treated

[lindisfarne]

http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/50403627.html?page=2&c=y
One in three breast cancer patients identified in public screening programs may be treated unnecessarily, a new study says. Karsten Jorgensen and Peter Gotzsche of the Nordic Cochrane Centre in Copenhagen analyzed breast cancer trends at least seven years before and after government-run screening programs for breast cancer started in parts of Australia, Britain, Canada, Norway and Sweden.

Once screening programs began, more cases of breast cancer were inevitably picked up, the study showed. If a screening program is working, there should also be a drop in the number of advanced cancer cases detected in older women, since their cancers should theoretically have been caught earlier when they were screened.
However, Jorgensen and Gotzsche found the national breast cancer screening systems, which usually test women aged between 50 and 69, simply reported thousands more cases than previously identified.

Overall, Jorgensen and Gotzsche found that one third of the women identified as having breast cancer didn't actually need to be treated.

...
Doctors and patients have long debated the merits of prostate cancer screening out of similar concerns that it overdiagnoses patients. A study in the Netherlands found that as many as two out of every five men whose prostate cancer was caught through a screening test had tumors too slow-growing to ever be a threat.

"Mammography is one of medicine's 'close calls,' ... where different people in the same situation might reasonably make different choices," wrote H. Gilbert Welch of VA Outcomes Group and the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Research, in an accompanying editorial in the BMJ. "Mammography undoubtedly helps some women but hurts others."

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. To my mind,

thermal imaging of the body is a better screening device than mammograms. They can detect growths years before they appear on mammograms, and read out fewer false positives. There is no compression or pain involved, and no radiation from x-rays. And yes, I've put my money where my mouth is--I had one done last month. Results are back and I'm okay, not only in my breasts but my thyroid gland, which had shown problems before.

Studies have shown, btw, that women with breast and uterine cancer do not have iodine in their bodies. One way to treat for early stages of cancer or other growths (such as thyroid cysts) is to give the patient iodine, monitoring their thyroid function all the while. It has helped many women I know of personally.

[CoffeeCat]

2. Thank you, I might have to look into thermal imaging...

I had a mammogram not too long ago. The tech clearly showed me a very obvious white dot on my films. She said she
couldn't give me an opinion and to wait for my doctor's analysis.

My doctor called and said, "What dot?" She didn't even see a dot.

A few days later, after thinking this over and talking with friends, I asked my doctor if I could schedule another mammogram.

The answer was NO...the insurance company wouldn't green light two mammograms within one month--especially when the doctor
was reporting that there was nothing unusual about the initial mammogram.

Nice, huh?

[newfie11]

3. As a radiographer/mammographer for 40 years

with 18 being only mammography,I can tell you that white dots can and often mean nothing. They can be harmless calcifications, cysts,abscess, even two vessels intersecting. It of course goes without saying they can also mean a problem. Your doctor should have received a report from the radiologist that read the mammogram. It is true that insurance will not pay for a repeat mammogram, but if there is a problem found, then they should pay for follow up additional views or an ultrasound. If this was a digital mammogram they may not need to call you back as the pictures can be adjusted to more closely look at what the tech was seeing.
Always go to a place that does LOTS of mammograms as the skill to read the images comes with practice. I retired 2 years ago but I was doing over 400 mammograms (including add views, biopsies) a month and I was one of 6 mammographers.

[CoffeeCat]

4. Thank you for your insight...

I do appreciate you taking the time to let me know what you think.

I do understand that white dots can mean nothing. My main problem was that my doctor said there was no white dot! I
know there was a white dot because I saw it, the tech saw it and we had a discussion about it for five minutes.

I would have felt fine if the doctor had said that there was a white dot, but it was a calcification. But she said
she saw nothing, when I clearly saw it.

The doctor even called the radiologist who read my films--and she said he saw nothing.

It remains a mystery to me. It's a bit unsettling because I'm wondering if films got mixed up or something. How does
a white dot disappear?

[newfie11]

5. A white dot does not disappear from a film

Your doctor probably does not have your films and even if she did she would not be qualified to read them. I would tell your doctor that you are concerned that the wrong films were read. Anything is possible. It is always possible/ but very unlikely for the wrong name to get put on a film. If you remember which breast had the dot then I would ask your doctor to call the radiologist and ask him to look again. It maybe what you all considered a white dot he considered normal glandular tissue superimposed over a vessel or more tissue. But to ease your concern do follow up. Don't ignore this. If this is your first mammogram then there is nothing to compare but if you have previous films they should have been compared. Calcifications, etc can come and go but there should be enough similarities from one year to the next. Make sure radiologist is told if you have lost weight or started HRT after previous mammo.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

6. To add to your point...

http://www.lef.org/news/LefDailyNews.htm?NewsID=8498&Section=Disease More at link:

One in Three Breast Cancers 'Harmless'

The Scotsman

07-10-09

AS MANY as one in three breast cancers detected by screening may actually be harmless and not need treatment, new research has found.

The study, which analysed data from the UK, Canada, Australia, Sweden and Norway, suggests some women undergo unnecessary treatment for cancers that are unlikely to kill them or spread. But campaigners have urged women to continue to go for screening, as research showed it saved many lives every year.

In Scotland, women are invited for a mammogram to check their breasts every three years between the ages of 50 and 70. In the latest study, researchers from the Nordic Cochrane Centre in Denmark pointed out that some breast cancers could grow so slowly that the patient died of other causes first, or the cancer might stay dormant or regress.

Writing in the British Medical Journal, the scientists said cancer screening programmes could lead to "overdiagnosis" as a result.