An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

New breast exam guidelines gaslight women out of life-saving health practices

290409_090432_4_Chris and Stefanie Spielman_1.jpgThe story of Stephanie Spielman, wife of Ohio State University and NFL star Chris Spielman, mother of four children, who was a 30 year old woman 12 years ago who gave herself a self-breast exam and discovered a lump that she then had examined and screened, died of breast cancer today at age 42.

Her story represents the stories that I dread will become absolutely the norm and her story represents the stories that other women who are unhappy with the new guideline recommendations about breast cancer screening dread.  That, under the new recommendations, a 30 year old woman will either not perform self-breast examinations which otherwise would give her something with which she could go to a doctor and ask for more screening, or that if she does ignore the new guidelines (which argue against self-examination: “[the task force] discouraged doctors from teaching breast self-examination” – yes, you read that right) and go ahead and do self exams, that when they then go to their doctors and ask for the screening, the doctor will require some ridiculous threshold before he or she will approve or recommend the screening. And that even then, the woman’s insurance won’t cover it since the guidelines say that it’s imperfect and not recommended for women under 50.

That passivity will be approved and routine.  That women will not trust themselves to know their body, that they will not bother because the system does not want to bother – because the system is so concerned about the harm of anxiety and over-biopsying.

I’ve read the guidelines, the reports and the very carefully worded explanations written by people I trust and admire.

But I am trusting my instinct on this and I am telling you – disapproving of self breast-examination and suggesting that women will have to walk in with such a threshold of concern for what they’re feeling about their body absolutely makes me irate at the thought of what a set back this is for women – for humans, for patients – to be in control of their health.

And the utter disregard for the human toll these illnesses take on everyone around the one diagnosed with the breast cancer.

Anxiety sucks. I’ve been there done that for years with shadows on films and MRIs that required additional testing.  And while I have a “family history” we don’t have the gene – and a very small percentage of women do have the gene mutations currently known to be responsible for a very small percentage of breast cancer.  My Gale score isn’t high enough to get me into most clinical trials.

From the New York Times:

While many women do not think a screening test can be harmful, medical experts say the risks are real. A test can trigger unnecessary further tests, like biopsies, that can create extreme anxiety. And mammograms can find cancers that grow so slowly that they never would be noticed in a woman’s lifetime, resulting in unnecessary treatment.

Over all, the report says, the modest benefit of mammograms — reducing the breast cancer death rate by 15 percent — must be weighed against the harms.

Screening in the 40-49 decade results in a 15% reduction in fatalities? I’ll take that over reducing the harm of anxiety and overbiopsying anyday.

  • pacatrue
    My understanding was that the research does not actually show that self-screening does reduce fatalities. That's what the whole thing is based off of. While it's certainly frustrating that women cannot do something actively to find this horrible disease, studies were showing it did not actually help them. It was pretend help.

    To be clear, it's the self-exams that did not help. The mammograms do help find cancer, but women can be killed by radiation and so they are trying to find the right balance.
  • superdestroyer
    What early screening does it catch the cancer earlier so that a woman will live for more than five years after original diagnosis. That is why early detection is not considered effect. It just starts the treatment earlier.

    As one surgical oncologist stated in a lecture that I was in, once a tumor is big enough to be seen on a mammogram, it is too big for effective treatment.
  • Also this isn't a mandate/law but some guidelines that doctors and insurance companies don't have to follow. But wife, like many other women, are going to "do what they gotta do" when it comes to their health. Guidelines be damned. LOL!
  • DLS
    The reaction is not surprising. And the real lesson here remains: This is an introduction to what we can expect when experts decide what is and what is not appropriate or otherwise merited -- once more bringing to light the whole issue of denial of care, rationing, and who decides what health care is "appropriate" and approved for government provision. (Tort reform and insurers' excuses for reducing costs and care provision, as well as blatant politics of this and feminism, and the "entitlement" mentality and facing reductions in expectations, and other things are pertinent as well, but secondary here.) This is no surprise to some of us, at least, and never was. You were already warned -- now you are reminded.

    Incidentally, Spielman was the subject of commentary this morning here in Detroit metro by someone on the Right (rather than the Left, who's looking it largely out of self-interest), who has wasted no time in correctly noting the relationship of this to other rationalizations that are promised for government health care takeover and "reform," and exploiting it politically (seizing on the opportunity to quote Enthoven as well as be critical of the elitist-and-leftist-as-well-as-remote-and-collectivist "live and death deciders").
  • DLS
    "early screening"

    As I've noted more than once, also, this is great in theory, but in practice often isn't cost-effective, and preventive care (not only screening) costs more and is less effective than cheap magic the dreamers believe it is.

    To the extent politics can be put aside (easy to do -- it's largely leftist howling), this is a typical result for a study that has a generalist, epidemological, public health orientation, which such studies arguably should have. (Specialists on the issues will introduce bias and are subject to illogical special pleading.)

    Here -- here is the essence and the full report creating all this news, as I posted earlier, elsewhere.


    The USPSTF recommends against routine screening mammography in women aged 40 to 49 years. The decision to start regular, biennial screening mammography before the age of 50 years should be an individual one and take into account patient context, including the patient's values regarding specific benefits and harms. (Grade C recommendation)

    The USPSTF recommends biennial screening mammography for women between the ages of 50 and 74 years. (Grade B recommendation)

    The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the additional benefits and harms of screening mammography in women 75 years or older. (I statement)

    The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the additional benefits and harms of clinical breast examination beyond screening mammography in women 40 years or older. (I statement)

    The USPSTF recommends against clinicians teaching women how to perform breast self-examination. (Grade D recommendation)

    The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess additional benefits and harms of either digital mammography or magnetic resonance imaging instead of film mammography as screening modalities for breast cancer. (I statement)


    http://www.annals.org/content/151/10/716.full.p...

    http://www.annals.org/content/151/10/716.full
  • DLS
    Jill:

    Coda

    "Women should have their first cervical cancer screening at age 21 and can be rescreened less frequently than previously recommended, according to newly revised evidence-based guidelines issued today by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and published in the December issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology. Most women younger than 30 should undergo cervical screening once every two years instead of annually, and those age 30 and older can be rescreened once every three years. ...

    ACOG now recommends that women from ages 21 to 30 be screened every two years instead of annually, using either the standard Pap or liquid-based cytology. Women age 30 and older who have had three consecutive negative cervical cytology test results may be screened once every three years with either the Pap or liquid-based cytology. Women with certain risk factors may need more frequent screening, including those who have HIV, are immunosuppressed, were exposed to diethylstilbestrol (DES) in utero, and have been treated for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2, CIN 3, or cervical cancer.

    Moving the baseline cervical screening to age 21 is a conservative approach to avoid unnecessary treatment of adolescents which can have economic, emotional, and future childbearing implications. ..."

    http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/pres...
  • DLS
    "some guidelines that doctors and insurance companies don't have to follow"

    Well, this doesn't affect tort reform directly, but as a rule, any guidelines become legal cannon fodder. They are at least an effective de facto and quasi-de jure minimal standard of care. Deviating from them is at a doctor's own risk. Also at issue (and seized promptly by lefties independently of the feminism- an dentitlement-mentality-related aspects of this specific guideline revision, "moving the minimum downward") is not so much the general lesson that should be gleaned, of cost control, but more specifiically, the suspicion that yes, the insurers will act promptly to revise downward their own standard of care and coverage. (They arguably pay more attention to the minimum standards of all kinds than the doctors and lawyers.)
  • Thanks for the comments and reactions. I'm not deaf to the arguments being made, my concern is the failure for them to take into account how implementing them at multiple levels of systems will affect overall health care for women and how women view their health, themselves. But in general, we know that some people are overvigilant, some live in denial of even basic care and some have no choice - they can't afford it.

    Regardless - I've made my position pretty clear. The ACOG/PAP is a little different but again, I fear the impact will be the same re: more deaths in the long run due to less knowledge of our bodies and health and more deference to medical and insurance professionals.

    To be clear: I do not hold the government responsible or in cohoots in ANY of this. It's happened over and over again regardless of which party was in office in the White House. It's game playing regarding what the medical and insurance professions decide for us. It's that aspect that makes me so angry - not that it can be changed, should be changed and so on. I'm just expressing how I'm feeling about it at the moment.

    One link I will offer is this conversation on Science Friday today with a clinician at Sloan Kettering. I thought he did a superb job in focusing on just how many fatalities are being ignored by the new recommendations. And Spielman's case highlights those.

    http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/2...

    Thanks to the TMV community for reading this post.
  • pacatrue
    Fair enough. One thing I hadn't heard until today was that similar guidelines were given recently about prostate cancer. Of course, you can't do a self-prostate check....
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC