- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Why did the american cancer society ignore the evidence on early detection?
Posted on 10/25/15 at 5:50 am
Posted on 10/25/15 at 5:50 am
quote:
for a century, the American Cancer Society has held up “early detection” of breast and other cancers as its mantra. Once, that made sense. But over the past few decades, the limitations of this approach have become increasingly apparent to researchers, physicians and other advocacy groups: Early detection may not save lives, and it can lead to unnecessary procedures. Yet the ACS has continued to insist that early detection was still the best way to find and treat the disease, and it demanded that Americans not skimp on regular breast exams and mammograms.
quote:
Finally, this past week, the organization announced a new policy. It conceded that women at average risk for breast cancer should begin annual screening at age 45 — not age 40, as previously prescribed — and that tests can become less frequent after age 54. Why did it take the nation’s most fervent anti-cancer group so long to grapple with new facts? The answer is a reminder that the best way to fight disease is with evidence — and that we should not pay for tests that are not effective, even if they are popular.
LINK
14
Posted on 10/25/15 at 6:15 am to RedRifle
Because they are in bed with the mammography industry. Its about money, not a cure.
Posted on 10/25/15 at 6:29 am to RedRifle
ACA influence. Cutting costs. 
Posted on 10/25/15 at 6:53 am to nes2010
Absolutely right..... follow the money to the answer.
Posted on 10/25/15 at 7:25 am to RedRifle
If you are cold and calculating about it the costs incurred due to the number of false positives outweigh the positive effects of the few caught early.
Posted on 10/25/15 at 7:33 am to nes2010
quote:
Because they are in bed with the mammography industry. Its about money, not a cure.
How do ACS guidelines decreasing access to mammography benefit the mammography industry?
Posted on 10/25/15 at 7:45 am to RedRifle
Money
Posted on 10/25/15 at 8:04 am to flash
quote:
How do ACS guidelines decreasing access to mammography benefit the mammography industry?
He's saying the ACS not wanting to give up the money is the reason it took them so long to change the age for testing from 40 to 45.
Posted on 10/25/15 at 8:08 am to RedRifle
As someone with no medical training...it seems damn obvious that you'd want to find cancer sooner than later. The argument here is what is done when you find it. Every little 'finding' doesn't require drastic surgery or the like, but damn I'm sure the person with the finding wants something done.
I just think this a poorly framed and argued point. I bet 100% of oncologist would rather treat an early tumor over one that's had time spread to many organs.
I just think this a poorly framed and argued point. I bet 100% of oncologist would rather treat an early tumor over one that's had time spread to many organs.
Posted on 10/25/15 at 8:14 am to RedRifle
You answered your question in your post title. The AMERICAN cancer society. Despite my entire livelihood depending on the American healthcare system, the whole thing is FUBAR (which isn't that much of a surprise).
Recommendations change and don't change all the time with no correlation to new research (i.e. new research comes out...recommendations don't change...no new research...recs change- leading to a change in treatment almost a decade after the evidence was published). It's all about which side pays the most.
Recommendations change and don't change all the time with no correlation to new research (i.e. new research comes out...recommendations don't change...no new research...recs change- leading to a change in treatment almost a decade after the evidence was published). It's all about which side pays the most.
Posted on 10/25/15 at 8:20 am to RedRifle
It's all about the $.
I'm certainly not an expert, but I understand that if something is found in a mammogram, as in the case of my wife, then an ultrasound is done to get a better handle on what's going on. Why not just do an ultrasound to begin with, and save time? I asked the doc and never got a coherent answer.
I'm certainly not an expert, but I understand that if something is found in a mammogram, as in the case of my wife, then an ultrasound is done to get a better handle on what's going on. Why not just do an ultrasound to begin with, and save time? I asked the doc and never got a coherent answer.
Posted on 10/25/15 at 8:22 am to MDTiger 13
quote:
Despite my entire livelihood depending on the American healthcare system, the whole thing is FUBAR (which isn't that much of a surprise).
Yeah that makes sense especially since people from all over the world come here to America to have surgical and other critical procedures done.
Posted on 10/25/15 at 8:27 am to OleWarSkuleAlum
quote:
Yeah that makes sense especially since people from all over the world come here to America to have surgical and other critical procedures done.
I didn't say it was a third-world healthcare system... other countries and healthcare systems make changes for the better years before the U.S. does with no reasoning other than money. When the inability to change in order to help save and better lives is due to money, that, my friend, is eff'ed up.
Posted on 10/25/15 at 8:28 am to RedRifle
Early detection can't hurt.
Posted on 10/25/15 at 8:32 am to RedRifle
Because they're the American CANCER Society, not the American ANTI-CANCER Society. See the difference?
Posted on 10/25/15 at 8:42 am to p0845330
quote:
Why not just do an ultrasound to begin with, and save time?
Ultrasound is not a viable screening tool. It is useful for some palpable masses and to distinguish characteristics of some mammography abnormalities, but as a pure screening tool, it is not a viable modality.
As for the whole screening thing, it is a real dilemma - because mammograms do indeed save lives, I know there are many on this board that know lives that are saved. The point of the deal in all this is simply that from an actuarial cost standpoint, it requires either too many negative results or too many false positives to save a life. Now if you or your family member is that particular life, then would you still feel that the old screening is a bad thing?
Now, I'v always felt that we over-screened to some degree, but I don't think its a slam dunk and it is some kind of evil scheme that has been perpetrated on the public. The old protocols were based on evidence, the new ones are based on different evidence (better?).
I'm on the front lines with this and am not really sure yet what is best, but I give patient options and discuss both the new and old screening recs. Another example of changing protocols are pap smears. It now appears we over screen for cervical cancer, but that is a product of our systems success at going a long way towards eradicating one particular type of cancer through large scale screening and early detection (and even better now for the next generation with the HPV vaccines).
Posted on 10/25/15 at 8:45 am to p0845330
quote:
I'm certainly not an expert, but I understand that if something is found in a mammogram, as in the case of my wife, then an ultrasound is done to get a better handle on what's going on. Why not just do an ultrasound to begin with, and save time? I asked the doc and never got a coherent answer.
My understanding is a mammogram is able to scan the entire breast at once and the ultrasound is only used for spot checking potential masses.
I would think a mammogram is also cheaper but not sure but I do know trying to schedule to get an ultrasound now a days for anything is tough as they are constantly booked.
Posted on 10/25/15 at 8:46 am to Helo
Thanks helo and bigpapi. Those are better answers than I got from the doctor.
This post was edited on 10/25/15 at 8:47 am
Posted on 10/25/15 at 8:57 am to RedRifle
This might be the most ignorant post I have seen in a while. Early detection of cancer is probably the number one tool in long term survival. To say it is not is lacking knowledge on the subject, and that person should not be trusted.
Posted on 10/25/15 at 9:21 am to AUCE05
Maybe you should actually read a little more before posting. Your post presents more ignorance than the OP.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News