Where’s the Common Sense in BC Screening? 2

Hello bOObs Bloggettes:

I’m re-posting this for those of you who have just joined us and/or missed this one; it’s a good overview for the problems we face in screening.

Something I sadly concluded while researching my film and upcoming book on breast cancer (BC) screening was this: Today’s screening program lacks A LOT of common sense that could easily be improved upon. Let’s walk through some of the items I encountered in the medical literature, during physician interviews, and real world stories from women:

1.The primary screening tool of mammography used by Medicine doesn’t detect BC until a solid tumor is already present — does that make sense?

***BOOBS SOLUTION: A study should be conducted on thermography to see if that might act as a better primary screening tool; thermography finds inflammation that can lead to tumor formation so it would be possible to catch a precancerous condition and turn that situation around before it becomes a tumor (see blog on this for more info)

2. Medicine uses the tool of mammography to screen for breast cancer that shoots radiation into the breast, when radiation itself can induce BC — does that make sense?

***BOOBS SOLUTION: Deem ultrasound and thermography as primary screening tools so that women have a choice in a non-radiative screening test if that’s what they wish to do (see previous blog post)

3. Mammography squeezes the breast thereby inducing inflammation (and sometimes a lot of pain!), which some researchers have postulated could lead to problems in the breast such as BC — does that make sense?

***BOOBS SOLUTION: Ultrasound and thermography are non-invasive tests that do not squeeze the breast (see past blog on trauma-induced cancer)

4. Ductal Carcinoma in Situ (DCIS), a Stage 0 precancerous condition only detectable via mammography, escalated from 3% of total breast cancers before mammograms were put into use to whopping 25% of BCs today; instead of using a “watch and wait” approach to this precancer (perhaps switching them over after DCIS detection to a noninvasive/nonradiative screening tool to track progress, such as thermography), these women are instead subjected to immediate treatment of lumpectomies or mastectomies and sometimes radiation — does this make any sense? (see past blog on DCIS over-diagnosis and over-treatment)

***BOOBS SOLUTION: Researchers are looking at the DCIS situation presently and studies are underway on using a “Watch and Wait” approach more frequently. Yay!

5. What to do with women in their 40s has long been debated in the literature with regards to screening; their premenopausal breasts are denser and, hence, more susceptible to radiation-induced BC (see below), yet prominent associations are still ignoring the evidence and advising doctors to recommend annual mammograms to women 40-50 years old (and sometimes even younger) — does that make any sense?

***BOOBS SOLUTION: Those still suggesting 40-50 year old women get screened annually need to look again at the science and evidence-based guidelines that the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force put out in 2009 that led to the changes in the screening recommendations: They advised starting screening at 50 years old. (see previous blogs on screening schedules)

6. The treatment of Dense Breast Tissue (DBT) lacks common sense all over the place with regards to screening and I have covered some of it in previous blogs, but it’s important so here we go:

*First point:  DBT is radiation-sensitive, meaning it has a higher susceptibility to DNA damage from radiation and hence higher probability for radiation-induced BC, yet the primary BC screening tool Medicine has chosen for women (90% of whom have some degree of DBT) contains radiation — does that make any sense?

*Second point: For a radiologist to see through the white-hued DBT on a mammogram in order to differentiate between it and white-hued cancer, the radiation tech has to crank up the radiation amount going into the breast (they don’t tell us this, of course). And the denser the breast, the more radiation-sensitive it is; but the higher the density, the higher they have to crank up the juice. So now the radiation-sensitive DBT is being further subjected to one of the things it’s sensitive to: RADIATION!  — does that make any sense?

*Third point: Putting the other two previous points together, Medicine claims they “have no idea” why women with DBT have a higher likelihood of developing BC in their lifetime. Really? No idea?  I’m just gonna let that one hang out there and wallow in its own stupidity…

***BOOBS SOLUTION: Stop the madness. (An upcoming blog will explain that “They” may indeed have a clue as to what’s going on as it’s right there in their evidence-based literature.)

Blog at you soon, thanks for reading and helping to spread the word!  (Please see the “share” links below.)  And we’d love to hear comments from you! (see below as well)

Stay healthy,

Megan

Megan Smith, M.S.
Director, bOObs: The War on Women’s Breasts

waymarkproductions.com