Comments on: American Cancer Society changes stance on cancer screening http://blastmagazine.com/the-magazine/technology/health-and-fitness/american-cancer-society-changes-stance-on-cancer-screening/ Movies, Music, TV, Video Games, and More Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:27:59 +0000 hourly 1 By: Darije Djokich M.D.,Ph.D http://blastmagazine.com/the-magazine/technology/health-and-fitness/american-cancer-society-changes-stance-on-cancer-screening/comment-page-1/#comment-14430 Darije Djokich M.D.,Ph.D Fri, 23 Oct 2009 07:45:43 +0000 http://blastmagazine.com/?p=31141#comment-14430 Speaking from the standpoint of scientific rigour logic, if there is only one poorly conducted research on the “compressed breast leading to cancer” theory (that does not sound silly at all), while it can not be said the theory has been proven, it can not be said it has been disproved either since it would require a scientifically rigorous study to do that (and that is lacking too); thus, we are still waiting for a conclusive answer - lack of positive evidence does not mean that no evidence exists, just that none has been found. If there were a lot of studies on the bra - breast cancer argument, and all were negative, we could assume statistically that the probability for not finding positive evidence are high, but since there are no ones present that assumption can not be made so the phrase “widely discredited by the medical community” carries very little weight here. As for the dangers of mammography I concur: only in those rare cases of hereditary cancer where patients where checked-up by yearly mammograms for years the cumulative X-ray dose may be taken in consideration as contributing to cancer, and that only in radiation hypersensitive tissue individuals. It still remains the best diagnostic method for breast cancer detection (do not forget advanced ultrasound exams - to be done in specialised centres by highly trained experts on top machines - that reduce the long term radiation exposure too) since palpation (falling under the “better than nothing, but not the best“ category even when done by an experienced examiner) will miss a portion of cancers in smaller sizes, compared to instrument diagnostic methods, where some of them might still be curable. Speaking from the standpoint of scientific rigour logic, if there is only one poorly conducted research on the “compressed breast leading to cancer” theory (that does not sound silly at all), while it can not be said the theory has been proven, it can not be said it has been disproved either since it would require a scientifically rigorous study to do that (and that is lacking too); thus, we are still waiting for a conclusive answer – lack of positive evidence does not mean that no evidence exists, just that none has been found. If there were a lot of studies on the bra – breast cancer argument, and all were negative, we could assume statistically that the probability for not finding positive evidence are high, but since there are no ones present that assumption can not be made so the phrase “widely discredited by the medical community” carries very little weight here.
As for the dangers of mammography I concur: only in those rare cases of hereditary cancer where patients where checked-up by yearly mammograms for years the cumulative X-ray dose may be taken in consideration as contributing to cancer, and that only in radiation hypersensitive tissue individuals. It still remains the best diagnostic method for breast cancer detection (do not forget advanced ultrasound exams – to be done in specialised centres by highly trained experts on top machines – that reduce the long term radiation exposure too) since palpation (falling under the “better than nothing, but not the best“ category even when done by an experienced examiner) will miss a portion of cancers in smaller sizes, compared to instrument diagnostic methods, where some of them might still be curable.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Michael Kaufmann http://blastmagazine.com/the-magazine/technology/health-and-fitness/american-cancer-society-changes-stance-on-cancer-screening/comment-page-1/#comment-14382 Michael Kaufmann Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:17:10 +0000 http://blastmagazine.com/?p=31141#comment-14382 Unfortunately James, there has only been one study performed regarding the link between wearing bras and breast cancer, but the study lacked any scientific rigor, meaning no usable conclusions could be drawn from it. Secondly, the pathology suggested by the review ("compression of the lymphatic system leading to a build up of toxins") has been widely discredited by the medical community. And while yes, x-rays are an ionizing radiation that can lead to DNA damage and eventually develop into cancer, the amount of radiation from a standard mammogram (about 0.7 mSv) is a small fraction of the 20 mSv that US DoE states that you can safely be exposed to on an average year, and approximately the same amount of radiation you receive over a typical three month span--clearly not a dangerous amount of radiation. X-rays are still one of doctors' most widely used tools for internal visualization and likely will be for a long time. Put another way, there really isn't a way to quantify the risk of getting an x-ray because it's so small; missing a malignant tumor because you skipped your mammogram, however, will almost certainly lead to death. While screening may not be having the desired effect on an epidemiological level for breast and prostate cancer, it's still catching the dangerous tumors in as many patients as well. There's give and take on every situation, and only your doctor and her many years of medical training can determine what's necessary for you. Unfortunately James, there has only been one study performed regarding the link between wearing bras and breast cancer, but the study lacked any scientific rigor, meaning no usable conclusions could be drawn from it. Secondly, the pathology suggested by the review (“compression of the lymphatic system leading to a build up of toxins”) has been widely discredited by the medical community.

And while yes, x-rays are an ionizing radiation that can lead to DNA damage and eventually develop into cancer, the amount of radiation from a standard mammogram (about 0.7 mSv) is a small fraction of the 20 mSv that US DoE states that you can safely be exposed to on an average year, and approximately the same amount of radiation you receive over a typical three month span–clearly not a dangerous amount of radiation. X-rays are still one of doctors’ most widely used tools for internal visualization and likely will be for a long time. Put another way, there really isn’t a way to quantify the risk of getting an x-ray because it’s so small; missing a malignant tumor because you skipped your mammogram, however, will almost certainly lead to death.

While screening may not be having the desired effect on an epidemiological level for breast and prostate cancer, it’s still catching the dangerous tumors in as many patients as well. There’s give and take on every situation, and only your doctor and her many years of medical training can determine what’s necessary for you.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Screens find little cancers not deadly ones - SmartPlanet http://blastmagazine.com/the-magazine/technology/health-and-fitness/american-cancer-society-changes-stance-on-cancer-screening/comment-page-1/#comment-14380 Screens find little cancers not deadly ones - SmartPlanet Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:18:58 +0000 http://blastmagazine.com/?p=31141#comment-14380 [...] The American Cancer Society has formally reversed itself on the necessity of regular cancer screenings in reaction to the [...] [...] The American Cancer Society has formally reversed itself on the necessity of regular cancer screenings in reaction to the [...]

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: laura little http://blastmagazine.com/the-magazine/technology/health-and-fitness/american-cancer-society-changes-stance-on-cancer-screening/comment-page-1/#comment-14379 laura little Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:01:47 +0000 http://blastmagazine.com/?p=31141#comment-14379 So what does this translate into in practical terms? What are the recommendations for mammograms, prostate tests, etc. I've yet to have a mammogram , preferring manual testing, because it seems to me to be submitting my body to danger, in the guise of preventative care. Are there new guidelines? So what does this translate into in practical terms? What are the recommendations for mammograms, prostate tests, etc. I’ve yet to have a mammogram , preferring manual testing, because it seems to me to be submitting my body to danger, in the guise of preventative care. Are there new guidelines?

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: james http://blastmagazine.com/the-magazine/technology/health-and-fitness/american-cancer-society-changes-stance-on-cancer-screening/comment-page-1/#comment-14378 james Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:56:16 +0000 http://blastmagazine.com/?p=31141#comment-14378 This shows why people cannot trust the ACS. For years they have been selling early detection with mammograms (which can also CAUSE cancer since they are dangerous x-rays.) This article does not mention how many cancers could have been caused by this. How many lives were destroyed by the fear and unnecessary treatment? And when will the ACS come to their senses about the link between bras and breast cancer? Wearing tight bras for long periods of time each day is the leading cause of breast cancer, but the ACS refuses to do any research into the bra/cancer link. They refuse to even consider the issue scientifically, and just scoff at the theory. Maybe they will change their minds someday on this one, too. This shows why people cannot trust the ACS. For years they have been selling early detection with mammograms (which can also CAUSE cancer since they are dangerous x-rays.) This article does not mention how many cancers could have been caused by this. How many lives were destroyed by the fear and unnecessary treatment?

And when will the ACS come to their senses about the link between bras and breast cancer? Wearing tight bras for long periods of time each day is the leading cause of breast cancer, but the ACS refuses to do any research into the bra/cancer link. They refuse to even consider the issue scientifically, and just scoff at the theory. Maybe they will change their minds someday on this one, too.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]>