What's Behind The New Recommendations For Mammograms

[democracy1st]

Run time: 05:14 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viGqsnssdfQ   Posted on YouTube: November 19, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: November 19, 2009 By DU Member: democracy1st Views on DU: 883

 
Not a single expert sitting on the board is a Oncologist. Oncology is a branch of medicine that deals with tumors (cancer).

Willing to bet you a dollar they recieve financial compensation from BigPharma/Insurance companys


Panel Urges Mammograms at 50, Not 40

Most women should start regular breast cancer screening at age 50, not 40, according to new guidelines released Monday by an influential group that provides guidance to doctors, insurance companies and policy makers.

The new recommendations, which do not apply to a small group of women with unusual risk factors for breast cancer, reverse longstanding guidelines and are aimed at reducing harm from overtreatment, the group says. It also says women age 50 to 74 should have mammograms less frequently — every two years, rather than every year. And it said doctors should stop teaching women to examine their breasts on a regular basis.

Just seven years ago, the same group, the United States Preventive Services Task Force, with different members, recommended that women have mammograms every one to two years starting at age 40. It found too little evidence to take a stand on breast self-examinations.

The task force is an independent panel of experts in prevention and primary care appointed by the federal Department of Health and Human Services.

Its new guidelines, which are different from those of some professional and advocacy organizations, are published online in The Annals of Internal Medicine They are likely to touch off yet another round of controversy over the benefits of screening for breast cancer.

Dr. Diana Petitti, vice chairwoman of the task force and a professor of biomedical informatics at Arizona State University, said the guidelines were based on new data and analyses and were aimed at reducing the potential harm from overscreening.

While many women do not think a screening test can be harmful, medical experts say the risks are real. A test can trigger unnecessary further tests, like biopsies, that can create extreme anxiety. And mammograms can find cancers that grow so slowly that they never would be noticed in a woman’s lifetime, resulting in unnecessary treatment.

Over all, the report says, the modest benefit of mammograms — reducing the breast cancer death rate by 15 percent — must be weighed against the harms. And those harms loom larger for women in their 40s, who are 60 percent more likely to experience them than women 50 and older but are less likely to have breast cancer, skewing the risk-benefit equation. The task force concluded that one cancer death is prevented for every 1,904 women age 40 to 49 who are screened for 10 years, compared with one death for every 1,339 women age 50 to 59, and one death for every 377 women age 60 to 69.


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

[ejpoeta]

1. my thinking is, and i know i sould nuts, but it sounds to me like the insurance companies

have found a reason not to ahve to pay for those mammograms now. well, if it isn't necessary...then you don't need it. already have to fight to get the test?? this sure isn't going to help you.

[kanrok]

2. One would think so

Except practically every state has a law in place requiring insurance companies to reimburse patients for screening mammograms.

Don't think the USPSTF recommendations are going to change the law in each state.

[pecwae]

3. It's not the mammo they're

concerned about, but the cost of treatment after the mammo has detected a problem. Gotta save those insurance companies some money so they can pass the increase on to us consumers!

[wisteria]

4. These recommendations are wrong and the timing of the decision could not be worse.

I am for health care reform, but when I herd about this, I immediately though about how these types of decisions could possible be more frequent under a new heath care system. This matter has gotten a lot of media attention and it is being framed by those opposed to any change. The administration really needs to be more forceful and out there playing this down and reassuring the public.

[JDPriestly]

5. What is behind the recommendation? Probably statistics.

And you do not have to be an oncologist to understand statistics.

There have been many, many women in my maternal line (my mitochondria). In fact, my maternal line runs to women. (Statistically speaking. Maybe the boy babies just didn't make it through their mothers' pregnancies.) And there has never been a case of breast cancer -- not for generations. In fact, I don't believe there has ever been a case of cancer in that maternal line. Knowing this and knowing how I am built, I did not bother responding to pleas from my insurance carrier to have frequent mammograms. I rightfully believed they were a waste of time and money.

So, many women need mammograms, but some of us don't. It should be a permitted and paid-for procedure, but it should not be required every year for all women. A mammogram every few years is fine for some of us. You can't count on the incidence of disease in your family, but it sure indicates a lot. I seem to have the same unusual problems (like migraines up to a certain age) that my grandmother and other female members of my mother's lineage have. (Know thyself and thy family history.) Why should I subject myself to more radiation and use my doctor's time when I don't need frequent testing? I think the more flexible guidelines are a good thing.

Now, if only there were a really good, inexpensive test for the health of your heart and circulatory system. I would be a prime candidate for that. (The stress test doesn't really indicate that much as I understand it.)

[StarryNite]

6. I agree.

And there is a risk involved in getting them. After all, like you said, it's an exposure to radiation. Also, they are not all that accurate. I had a neighbor who felt a lump and went to her doctor who had her go for a mammogram. The mammogram found nothing out of the ordinary. It turned out to be a false negative because the doctor didn't trust the mammogram results and did a biopsy which turned out positive for breast cancer.

[Tx4obama]

7. It's not the first time ...

I don't know that station it was but one of them had someone on there saying that this is NOT the first time that the same recommendation has been given it has been in the past and was never adopted. I believe they said under Clinton and also Bush. I was only half-way listening at the time.