~Mammograms~

[geauxtohell]

During the discussion about Obama health care back in '09 when democrats were comfortable in their total majority, Washington Post's Rob Stein wrote a piece on 11/17/09 quoting the Vice Chairperson of a federal agency known as the "U.S. Preventitive Task Force". Diana Petitty said "we are recommending against routine (mammogram) screening". True to form the Post's Rob Stein said "several paitent advocacy groups welcome the new guidelines". It was a lie of course. Patient advocacy groups were outraged. The Obama attempt at cutting a potential expensive procedure failed big time and the sycophant news sources covered their asses with a couple ovf claims that the "mammogram message was muddled" and then they forgot about the whole thing.

/\ This is the bullshit I was talking about. The USPSTF recommendations had nothing to do with "Obamacare".

 

[jillian]

There has been much talk in the past few years regarding mammograms.
Some doctors say they do not help in detecting breast cancer, and others argued they did.
Here is an article I happened upon, and it states that mammograms do save lives, more than originally thought.
That's good news for all women. (and men too.)

Longest Trial Ever Confirms Mammograms' Benefits - Breast Cancer Center - Everyday Health

no one argues that mammograms do not help in detecting breast cancer. INSURANCE COMPANIES fussed over the age because they don't want to pay for them.

 

[Albertsmith]

A mammogram is an x-ray picture of the breast.The results are recorded on x-ray film or directly into a computer for a doctor called a radiologist to examine.it is used to visualize normal and abnormal structures within the breasts.it is so helpfult to detect the breast cancer.

 

[waltky]

New breast cancer drug...

Experimental drug keeps aggressive breast cancer at bay
3 June`12 - An experimental drug treatment may help keep a certain kind of aggressive breast cancer at bay, offering new hope for individual therapies against difficult tumors, said research released Sunday.

The phase III trial comparing trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) to standard therapy for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2 positive) breast cancer was presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology conference in Chicago. The international study randomized nearly 1,000 patients to receive either T-DM1 or standard therapy every three weeks. The subjects all had metastatic cancer that had spread to other parts of the body. The trial found that progression-free survival in the T-DM1 group was 9.6 months, compared to 6.4 months in the standard therapy group, which study authors described as "clinically meaningful improvement." "The drug worked. It was significantly better than a very effective approved therapy for HER2 overexpressing metastatic breast cancer," said lead study author Kimberly Blackwell, professor of medicine at Duke University. "Also, as a clinician who takes care of a lot of breast cancer patients, I'm pleased that this drug has very little dose-limiting toxicity. Patients don't lose their hair from this drug. "For patients facing metastatic breast cancer, this is a breakthrough."

The data on overall survival time showed 65 percent of T-DM1 patients were alive after two years, compared to 47.5 percent of the standard therapy patients, a threshold that fell short of the trial's predetermined limits for judging statistical significance. More analysis of survival times is planned for later in the ongoing study. HER2 positive cancer makes up about 15 percent of breast cancers, and is tends to be more difficult to treat. However some targeted therapies have shown promise, such as trastuzumab, also known as Herceptin. "Trastuzumab is now a standard in the adjuvant setting to reduce risk of recurrence and improve survival, and in the metastatic setting to control disease and prolong life," said Antonio Wolff, professor of oncology at The Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center. "Unfortunately, there are still many patients with HER2-positive disease whose disease recurs despite adjuvant trastuzumab, and whose cancers stop responding when treated in the metastatic setting," said Wolff, who was not involved with the study.

He described T-DM1 as a "second generation HER2-targeted therapy that goes one step further" by delivering small doses of chemotherapy to the HER2 positive tumors. TDM-1 is "another critical step in our quest towards the individualization of therapies," he told AFP. These therapies, like trastuzumab, have "helped change what was once a bad prognosis into a disease that can now be controlled and in many patients cured." Wolff said future studies are likely to focus on T-DM1 as a treatment given earlier in the course of the disease, and in combination with other drug treatments. Trastuzumab emtansine is being developed globally by Swiss pharmaceutical giant Roche under a collaboration agreement between ImmunoGen and Genentech, and drug makers are seeking regulatory approval in the US and Europe this year.

Source

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Ladies, get yer blood tested

Blood test 'can save breast cancer patients' lives'
6 June`12 - A simple blood test can save lives by helping doctors swiftly diagnose whether a patient with early breast cancer faces high risk of death or relapse after treatment, specialists said Wednesday.

Tumour cells in a blood sample, when taken at an early stage of the disease, are an accurate predictor of a patient's survival chances, the team said in the journal The Lancet Oncology. The findings could help identify early on which patients might benefit from additional treatment like chemotherapy. "The presence of one or more circulating tumour cells (CTCs, in the blood) predicted early recurrence and decreased overall survival," said the researchers from the University of Texas' MD Anderson Cancer Center. The more CTCs they found, the higher the risk of death.

CTC blood tests are not currently used to analyse a patient's prognosis or prescribe treatment, as cancer tumours are generally thought to spread through the lymphatic system rather than the bloodstream. The team conducted tests on 302 patients treated at the centre between February 2005 and December 2010. The subjects were at an early phase of breast cancer -- before it spread to other parts of the body -- and had not received chemotherapy. The team found CTCs in a quarter of the group. Of those with tumour cells in their blood, one in seven relapsed after treatment and one in 10 died during the test period.

By contrast, patients whose blood tests yielded no CTCs had a relapse rate of three percent and a death rate of two percent. "For patients with a higher concentration of CTCs, the correlation with survival and progression rates was even more dramatic, with 31 percent of these patients dying or relapsing," said a press release accompanying the study. Previous research showed similar results in patients with breast cancer that had already metastasised, or spread. The new study claims to show that "advanced disease is not necessary for cancer cells to spread (via the blood) and compromise survival."

Others urged caution, saying the research was in its infancy and urging larger clinical studies. "It's great work and very well conducted. We just don't know how to act on the study yet, ie what to do differently with our patients," Justin Stebbing of the Department of Surgery and Cancer at London's Imperial College told AFP. In particular, it was not clear whether the CTC count must be measured before, during or after surgery to remove the cancerous growth. Nor was it clear what effect chemotherapy would have on the CTC markers.

Blood test 'can save breast cancer patients' lives' - Yahoo! News

 

[waltky]

Uncle Ferd thinks its a commonist plot to close down his free "Feelin' breast fer lumps" clinic...

US cancer body oversells mammograms: experts
3 Aug.`12 - Medical experts on Friday accused a major US breast cancer foundation known for its high-profile "pink ribbon" campaign of overselling pre-emptive mammography and understating the risks.

The Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation uses misleading statistics in its pro-screening campaigns, two doctors from The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice in New Hampshire wrote in the BMJ medical journal. "Unfortunately, there is a big mismatch between the strength of evidence in support of screening and the strength of Komen's advocacy for it," professors Steven Woloshin and Lisa Schwartz wrote. They take issue with a Komen poster comparing the 98-percent five-year survival rate for breast cancer when caught early, with a 23-percent rate for later diagnosis.

Comparing the two figures did not say anything about the benefits of screening, they argued, and in reality a mammogram only narrowly decreases the chances that a 50-year-old woman will die from breast cancer within 10 years from 0.53 percent to 0.46 percent. Breast cancer treatments are more effective today, and some question whether screening mammography has any benefit whatsoever, wrote the pair. They accused Komen of overlooking the potential harms, with up to half of women screened annually over 10 years experiencing at least one false alarm that requires a biopsy.

Screening also results in overdiagnosis -- detecting cancers that would never have killed or even caused symptoms in a person's lifetime, and unnecessary treatment. "The Komen advertisement campaign failed to provide the facts," said the piece. "Worse, it undermined decision making by misusing statistics to generate false hope about the benefit of mammography screening." In 2010, a report in the New England Journal of Medicine said mammograms have only a "modest" impact on reducing breast cancer deaths.

Komen, in a response to the BMJ comment, insisted that early detection enables early treatment, which gives the best shot at survival. "Everyone agrees that mammography isn't perfect, but it's the best widely available detection tool that we have today," said Chandini Portteus, the foundation's vice president of research, evaluation and scientific programmes. "We've said for years that science has to do better, which is why Komen is putting millions of dollars into research to detect breast cancer before symptoms start, through biomarkers, for example." In February, Komen was embroiled in a controversy over its decision to stop funding for an abortion clinic group in the United States.

US cancer body oversells mammograms: experts - Yahoo! News

 

[coleenbeauty]

Early detection really plays a great role in treating someone with breast cancer. People should be well-educated with matters concerning health.

 

[BDBoop]

I think I will do volunteer breast exams at Walgreens?

Which one? I can be there in an hour.

 

[yankhadenuf]

There has been much talk in the past few years regarding mammograms.
Some doctors say they do not help in detecting breast cancer, and others argued they did.
Here is an article I happened upon, and it states that mammograms do save lives, more than originally thought.
That's good news for all women. (and men too.)

Well, that is absolutely true, as I can personally attest to! I did not wait any longer for my mammogram this year because the Affordable Care Act allows for free mammograms on your health insurance plan now (in other words, no more out-of-pocket expenses such as copays/coinsurance for mammograms.) Early detection is essential. I was diagnosed Breast Cancer I this year, due to linear micro-calcifications that showed up on a digital mammogram. I had no symptoms at all prior to my mammogram. The lumpectomy with clear margins took all the breast cancer and the lymph surgery showed negative (no metastasis!). I thank God and ACA every day

 

[Katzndogz]

Doctor's don't say that mammograms don't help detect cancer. Government "experts" say that because that's what they are paid to say. The reason is that the government under obamacare will no longer pay for mammograms.

 

[Katzndogz]

My doctor told me not to wait any longer to have a mammogram because under ACA I would not be eligible to have one for another three years and I had to get in under the wire. But, when I finally did get one, it would be without a co-pay.

 

[yankhadenuf]

Doctor's don't say that mammograms don't help detect cancer. Government "experts" say that because that's what they are paid to say. The reason is that the government under obamacare will no longer pay for mammograms.

Please read my above post. The exact opposite is true. The Affordable Healthcare Act removed out-of-pocket expenses from mammograms on everyone's health insurance plan, anyone can get their annual mammogram on their insurance plan for FREE now (only stipulation is that you are 40 or over). If you have special circumstances under 40, get that mammogram, spare no expense! Go to Healthcare (dot) gov and look under New Preventive Benefits for Women to find out how this effects you if you are under 40!

 

[Greenbeard]

The reason is that the government under obamacare will no longer pay for mammograms.

Mammograms | Medicare.gov

 

[Againsheila]

Far be it for me to dispute the findings of experts. All I know is the my sister and sister-in-law are currently cancer survivors because they had their mammograms while in their 40's.

I felt a lump, hadn't had a mammogram in ten years. I went in for one and was called back for a needle biopsy. It was positive and I had a lumpectomy. I am a cancer survivor. My doctor's claim I'm the poster child for self examination. My lump was about the size of a dime. They couldn't believe I'd even felt it.

 

[Katzndogz]

Under obama's changes, mammograms would be on a predefined schedule the older you get. So a woman in her 40s might get mammograms every year when a woman in her 50s get them less often and the older she gets the less often.

Change that, it's not 40, it's 50.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/health/17cancer.html

 

[Greenbeard]

Under obama's changes, mammograms would be on a predefined schedule the older you get. So a woman in her 40s might get mammograms every year when a woman in her 50s get them less often and the older she gets the less often.

Change that, it's not 40, it's 50.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/health/17cancer.html

Obama's changes specifically say to disregard the 2009 recommendations mentioned in your article.

42 USC § 300gg

(a) In general

A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall, at a minimum provide coverage for and shall not impose any cost sharing requirements for—

(1) evidence-based items or services that have in effect a rating of “A” or “B” in the current recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force;
(2) immunizations that have in effect a recommendation from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention with respect to the individual involved; and
(3) with respect to infants, children, and adolescents, evidence-informed preventive care and screenings provided for in the comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration.
(4) with respect to women, such additional preventive care and screenings not described in paragraph (1) as provided for in comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration for purposes of this paragraph.
(5) for the purposes of this chapter, and for the purposes of any other provision of law, the current recommendations of the United States Preventive Service Task Force regarding breast cancer screening, mammography, and prevention shall be considered the most current other than those issued in or around November 2009.​

 

[Katzndogz]

I see nothing to contradict age based medicine.

 

[Greenbeard]

I see nothing to contradict age based medicine.

Do you see something to contradict the notion that the article you posted has anything to do with Medicare's coverage policies?

 

[jillian]

There has been much talk in the past few years regarding mammograms.
Some doctors say they do not help in detecting breast cancer, and others argued they did.
Here is an article I happened upon, and it states that mammograms do save lives, more than originally thought.
That's good news for all women. (and men too.)

Longest Trial Ever Confirms Mammograms' Benefits - Breast Cancer Center - Everyday Health

if they say mammograms don't detect abnormalities, they're lying.

 

[Katzndogz]

I see nothing to contradict age based medicine.

Do you see something to contradict the notion that the article you posted has anything to do with Medicare's coverage policies?

The article I posted was concerned with the change in age relating to mammograms not medicare coverage.