Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Please show us an article that describes the clinical methodology used to tell which very early breast cancers will progress and which will not. What blood test or imaging study or test on the cancer tissue itself will tell us that?
I showed you articles claiming there is no benefit from having mammograms. Well there is benefit, but that's mostly for the mammogram providers.
No one knows for absolute certain, but it looks like women can forget mammograms and rely on other kinds of detection.
However, the point I was trying to make has been lost. The statistics for cancer cure rates can be very misleading. If half of the women treated for breast cancer never had a malignant disease, then the cure rate seems twice what it really is.
I showed you articles claiming there is no benefit from having mammograms. Well there is benefit, but that's mostly for the mammogram providers.
No one knows for absolute certain, but it looks like women can forget mammograms and rely on other kinds of detection.
However, the point I was trying to make has been lost. The statistics for cancer cure rates can be very misleading. If half of the women treated for breast cancer never had a malignant disease, then the cure rate seems twice what it really is.
Wrong.....again....
The most recently published large scale study of more than 50000 women from Sweden published in the November 2018 journal Cancer refutes all of your off base opinions....
"The study showed that women screened regularly for breast cancer have a 47 percent lower risk of dying from the disease within 20 years of diagnosis than those not regularly screened. Ninety-five percent of all breast cancer deaths occur within 20 years of diagnosis.1,2,3
“The Tabar study shows beyond doubt that therapy is far more effective when breast cancers are found earlier via mammography. Screening and therapy work hand in hand. Annual screening starting at age 40 and therapy are vital to saving the most lives,” said Dana Smetherman, MD, chair of the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Commission. " https://www.acr.org/Media-Center/ACR...-Cancer-Deaths
So mammography conclusively DOES save lives and the nonsense you posted about "cancer cure rates" is just that....nonsense....
The most recently published large scale study of more than 50000 women from Sweden published in the November 2018 journal Cancer refutes all of your off base opinions....
"The study showed that women screened regularly for breast cancer have a 47 percent lower risk of dying from the disease within 20 years of diagnosis than those not regularly screened. Ninety-five percent of all breast cancer deaths occur within 20 years of diagnosis.1,2,3
“The Tabar study shows beyond doubt that therapy is far more effective when breast cancers are found earlier via mammography. Screening and therapy work hand in hand. Annual screening starting at age 40 and therapy are vital to saving the most lives,” said Dana Smetherman, MD, chair of the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Commission. " https://www.acr.org/Media-Center/ACR...-Cancer-Deaths
So mammography conclusively DOES save lives and the nonsense you posted about "cancer cure rates" is just that....nonsense....
Well different researchers have reached very different conclusions.
By the way, when risks are reported as relative percentages it is impossible to know the size of the risk reduction. Relative risk is a way of making a tiny benefit seem large.
Good point. That's the dilemma. The older a woman is when she finally has a tumor large enough to be palpated, the less likely it is a fast grower-- treatment may not be needed.
It's difficult to evaluate the value of screening mammography. Many lesions are biopsied that didn't have to be-- but, as you say-- how do we know before hand?...Also, due to the coincidental improvement in therapy for breast ca during the period in which we've had mammography available, we can't really tell if it was the early detection or the improved tx that has led t improved survival.
Theoretical example-- twin sisters develop the their first malignant cell on the same day. One sister goes for regular mammography, the other doesn't. At age X, they find the mass and that sister has tx. Four yrs later, the other sister finally feels a lump in her breast, and goes thru tx. Six yrs later, both sisters die on the same day from recurrent breast cancer. The first lived for 10 yrs , the second for only six yrs after dx...See! Early detection works! …???
.
Your first statement is absolutely not true. The hormone receptor profile is what's important.
This study measured the growth of (relatively small) tumors just over a short interval between diagnosis and surgery.
The better scenario would be that two sisters have mammograms on the same day. Their findings are identical: calcifications suggestive of beast cancer. One sister's tumor will progress and kill her if untreated. The other sister's will not.
How do you determine which sister you will treat and which you will not? Flip a coin? This is the conundrum that over diagnosis creates.
Your anecdote actually describes a different situation: lead time bias. Does diagnosing a cancer earlier just lead to a longer period during which there is awareness of the cancer? A third source of bias is length bias, which reflects how rapidly a tumor grows.
I showed you articles claiming there is no benefit from having mammograms. Well there is benefit, but that's mostly for the mammogram providers.
No one knows for absolute certain, but it looks like women can forget mammograms and rely on other kinds of detection.
However, the point I was trying to make has been lost. The statistics for cancer cure rates can be very misleading. If half of the women treated for breast cancer never had a malignant disease, then the cure rate seems twice what it really is.
Your premise is false. It is not true that "half of the women treated for breast cancer never had a malignant disease." That is your misinterpretation of a statement that refers to very small tumors found with screening mammography. "Over diagnosis" applies to screening, not to larger cancers which are clinically diagnosable without mammography.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
Well different researchers have reached very different conclusions.
By the way, when risks are reported as relative percentages it is impossible to know the size of the risk reduction. Relative risk is a way of making a tiny benefit seem large.
Risk is an entirely different concept and irrelevant to the current discussion.
This isn't about alternative medicine anymore and it's guaranteed to turn into a fight. I think most posters have had their say.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
