cancer

The forum for ranting, raving, complaining and praising
Post Reply
tscards
Veteran Player
Posts: 1233
Joined: April 20 06, 6:28 pm
Location: Sioux Falls, SD

Re: cancer

Post by tscards »

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.

:evil:

User avatar
cpebbles
Perennial All-Star
Posts: 8838
Joined: August 30 07, 12:28 pm

Re: cancer

Post by cpebbles »

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.

:evil:
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.

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.

tscards
Veteran Player
Posts: 1233
Joined: April 20 06, 6:28 pm
Location: Sioux Falls, SD

Re: cancer

Post by tscards »

cpebbles wrote:
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.

:evil:
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.

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.
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.

I'm guessing this will be hotly debated for a long time.

User avatar
Molly
Perennial All-Star
Posts: 4789
Joined: May 10 06, 9:57 am
Location: 6.6 miles from Busch III

Re: cancer

Post by Molly »

+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.

planet planet
http://tinyurl.com/2e4x5hy
Posts: 24994
Joined: April 15 06, 6:25 pm
Location: St. Louis

Re: cancer

Post by planet planet »

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.

Arthur Dent
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 12317
Joined: April 25 06, 6:43 pm
Location: Austin

Re: cancer

Post by Arthur Dent »

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.
What are the adverse consequences of a mammogram?

Swatcat27
All-Star
Posts: 1834
Joined: July 25 06, 12:58 pm
Location: Austin, TX

Re: cancer

Post by Swatcat27 »

TS,Sorry to hear that...Best wishes to you both for a speedy recovery.

User avatar
sighyoung
Mayor of GRB
Posts: 37618
Joined: April 17 06, 7:42 pm
Location: Louisville

Re: cancer

Post by sighyoung »

Arthur Dent wrote:
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.
What are the adverse consequences of a mammogram?
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
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 12317
Joined: April 25 06, 6:43 pm
Location: Austin

Re: cancer

Post by Arthur Dent »

sighyoung wrote:
Arthur Dent wrote:
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.
What are the adverse consequences of a mammogram?
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.
Are these additional screenings harmful or just expensive?

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.

jim
Red Lobster for the seafood lover in you
Posts: 50608
Joined: May 1 06, 2:41 pm

Re: cancer

Post by jim »

Arthur Dent wrote:
sighyoung wrote:
Arthur Dent wrote:
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.
What are the adverse consequences of a mammogram?
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.
Are these additional screenings harmful or just expensive?

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.
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.

Post Reply