cancer
-
- Veteran Player
- Posts: 1233
- Joined: April 20 06, 6:28 pm
- Location: Sioux Falls, SD
Re: cancer
IF my wife had followed the government's new "guidelines" for exams/mammograms & waited until 50, her cancer would have progressed too far & she would not be around. She is only 40. Frustrating as hell to hear this come out the day she went in for surgery last week!!!
Will likely need some form of chemo, but FORTUNATELY this was caught early before progressing too far.
Will likely need some form of chemo, but FORTUNATELY this was caught early before progressing too far.
- cpebbles
- Perennial All-Star
- Posts: 8838
- Joined: August 30 07, 12:28 pm
Re: cancer
That may have been the case, but the new guidelines are firmly rooted in evidence. Medicine is always a tradeoff, and the average woman is better off with the new guidelines. Remember, nothing we do is benign, even something as simple as a 5-minute needle aspiration or a routine mammogram has a risk of adverse consequences.tscards wrote:IF my wife had followed the government's new "guidelines" for exams/mammograms & waited until 50, her cancer would have progressed too far & she would not be around. She is only 40. Frustrating as hell to hear this come out the day she went in for surgery last week!!!
Will likely need some form of chemo, but FORTUNATELY this was caught early before progressing too far.
Incidentally, women are no longer recommended to do self-exams either because of the very low yield and the high probability of finding something completely benign which then has to be followed up on.
-
- Veteran Player
- Posts: 1233
- Joined: April 20 06, 6:28 pm
- Location: Sioux Falls, SD
Re: cancer
While "evidence" may be behind this, try convincing a cancer survivor who was under 50 and would not be alive today if not caught early, or a family that loses someone to cancer because it was not caught in time. I likely may have somewhat dismissed this as "ok, let's go along with the new "guidelines"", but not anymore. I would not have my wife within 10 yrs or sooner if she did not have a mammogram.cpebbles wrote:That may have been the case, but the new guidelines are firmly rooted in evidence. Medicine is always a tradeoff, and the average woman is better off with the new guidelines. Remember, nothing we do is benign, even something as simple as a 5-minute needle aspiration or a routine mammogram has a risk of adverse consequences.tscards wrote:IF my wife had followed the government's new "guidelines" for exams/mammograms & waited until 50, her cancer would have progressed too far & she would not be around. She is only 40. Frustrating as hell to hear this come out the day she went in for surgery last week!!!
Will likely need some form of chemo, but FORTUNATELY this was caught early before progressing too far.
Incidentally, women are no longer recommended to do self-exams either because of the very low yield and the high probability of finding something completely benign which then has to be followed up on.
I'm guessing this will be hotly debated for a long time.
- Molly
- Perennial All-Star
- Posts: 4789
- Joined: May 10 06, 9:57 am
- Location: 6.6 miles from Busch III
Re: cancer
+1 tscards. My fear is that insurance companies are going to run with these "findings" and no longer pay for mammograms for women under 50 and only pay every other year for over 50.
-
- http://tinyurl.com/2e4x5hy
- Posts: 24994
- Joined: April 15 06, 6:25 pm
- Location: St. Louis
Re: cancer
I wanted to post a note of tribute to brave woman who founded the Stefanie Spielberg Fund for Breast Cancer at Ohio State (more than $6.5 million raised so far) and lost her battle with this awful disease on November 19th. She was a loving mother of four and beloved wife of former NFLer, All American, and ESPN broadcaster, Chris Spielman. She was 42 and had battled for over a decade. I went to high school with Stefanie and was friends with her sister. She and Chris were high school sweethearts. If you recall, Chris retired from football to support her and his family. Donations can be made at http://www.spielmanfund.com. Here is the link to her tribute video, http://chrisspielman.com/video-clips.html or she and Chris's version of I Got You Babe[/YouTube].
Wishing you the best, tscards.
Wishing you the best, tscards.
-
- Hall Of Famer
- Posts: 12317
- Joined: April 25 06, 6:43 pm
- Location: Austin
Re: cancer
What are the adverse consequences of a mammogram?cpebbles wrote:Remember, nothing we do is benign, even something as simple as a 5-minute needle aspiration or a routine mammogram has a risk of adverse consequences.
-
- All-Star
- Posts: 1834
- Joined: July 25 06, 12:58 pm
- Location: Austin, TX
Re: cancer
TS,Sorry to hear that...Best wishes to you both for a speedy recovery.
- sighyoung
- Mayor of GRB
- Posts: 37618
- Joined: April 17 06, 7:42 pm
- Location: Louisville
Re: cancer
False positives that lead to more extensive screening, but also a small risk from radiation, and (seriously) the small chance that breast compression itself may contribute to the spread of any present cancerous cells.Arthur Dent wrote:What are the adverse consequences of a mammogram?cpebbles wrote:Remember, nothing we do is benign, even something as simple as a 5-minute needle aspiration or a routine mammogram has a risk of adverse consequences.
-
- Hall Of Famer
- Posts: 12317
- Joined: April 25 06, 6:43 pm
- Location: Austin
Re: cancer
Are these additional screenings harmful or just expensive?sighyoung wrote:False positives that lead to more extensive screening, but also a small risk from radiation, and (seriously) the small chance that breast compression itself may contribute to the spread of any present cancerous cells.Arthur Dent wrote:What are the adverse consequences of a mammogram?cpebbles wrote:Remember, nothing we do is benign, even something as simple as a 5-minute needle aspiration or a routine mammogram has a risk of adverse consequences.
It would seem like there would need to be more than small risks to counter-balance the lifesaving benefits. I've rejected dental x-rays because I'm not convinced they're particularly beneficial, and I don't want the radiation, but cancer prevention seems much more critical.
-
- Red Lobster for the seafood lover in you
- Posts: 50608
- Joined: May 1 06, 2:41 pm
Re: cancer
They just did a segment on this two nights ago on our ABC news affiliate. They said for some people it actually increases the risk of cancer enough to outweigh the benefits of getting the screening done.Arthur Dent wrote:Are these additional screenings harmful or just expensive?sighyoung wrote:False positives that lead to more extensive screening, but also a small risk from radiation, and (seriously) the small chance that breast compression itself may contribute to the spread of any present cancerous cells.Arthur Dent wrote:What are the adverse consequences of a mammogram?cpebbles wrote:Remember, nothing we do is benign, even something as simple as a 5-minute needle aspiration or a routine mammogram has a risk of adverse consequences.
It would seem like there would need to be more than small risks to counter-balance the lifesaving benefits. I've rejected dental x-rays because I'm not convinced they're particularly beneficial, and I don't want the radiation, but cancer prevention seems much more critical.