Hello bOObs Bloggettes:
I’m reposting this much earlier post as a good overview of what’s occurring in the breast cancer (BC) screening world. Hope it helps some of you:
Something I put together while researching my film and upcoming book on breast cancer screening was this: Today’s screening program sometimes lacks a lot of common sense. 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? No.
***Common Sense 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 might be possible to catch a precancerous condition and turn that situation around before it becomes a tumor.
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? No.
***Common Sense SOLUTION: Deem ultrasound and thermography as primary screening tools so that women have a choice in a non-radiative screening test.
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? No.
***Common Sense SOLUTION: Ultrasound and thermography are non-invasive tests that do not squeeze the breast (we’ll look into the evidence of trauma-induced cancer in an upcoming blog).
4. Ductal Carcinoma in Situ (DCIS), a precancerous condition only detectable via mammography, escalated from 3% of total breast cancers before mammograms were put into use to 20-25% of BCs today; instead of using a “watch and wait” approach to this precancer (perhaps switching them over after detection of DCIS to a noninvasive/nonradiative screening tool to track progression), many of these women are instead subjected to immediate treatment of mastectomies and sometimes radiation — does this make any sense? No. (see past blog on DCIS over-diagnosis and over-treatment).
***Common Sense 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 players in medicine are still ignoring the evidence and advising doctors to recommend annual mammograms to women 40-50 years old — does that make any sense? No.
***Common Sense 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 then starting screening at 50 years old (see blogs on this).
6. The treatment of Dense Breast Tissue (DBT) lacks common sense all over the place with regards to screening and I have covered much of it in previous blogs, but it’s important so let’s look at the basics:
First point: DBT is radiation-sensitive, meaning it has a higher susceptibility to DNA damage 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? No.
Second point: For a radiologist to see through the white-hued DBT on a mammogram in order to differentiate between DBT and a white-hued cancer, the radiation tech has to crank up the radiation amount going into the breast (they don’t tell us this, unfortunately), 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? No.
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. I don’t even know where to begin with this one…
***Common Sense SOLUTION: Dear Medicine, read your own literature citations and figure this one out for the sake of women’ health — because it’s right there in black and white.
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
If you haven’t signed up for the bOObs email list and/or to receive notifications for new blogonbOObs posts, and important political advocacy news (including rallies or petition sign-ups to Congress or State/Federal Government entities), you can sign up here. :)))
For more info on my documentary film “bOObs: The War on Women’s Breasts” or to buy/screen the film: bOObsDoc.com
Our films are entirely self-funded, so we appreciate any contributions. Click on the yellow button below and you’ll be directed to PayPal, where you can make a tax-deductible donation through “From The Heart Productions.”. Or use the QR code.
Please follow us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/boobsthewaronwomensbreasts and Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/boobsdoc/
If you have a comment or suggestion, please contact us here.
0 Comments