We interrupt the normal prevention posts for a comment about an article in the New York Times today concerning reactions to the new laws that allow you to know your breast density http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/25/health/laws-tell-mammogram-clinics-to-address-breast-density.html.
The piece notes "a divisive component to breast screening" rather than a life-saving potential. It uses phrases like "irked medical groups" and "delighted patient advocates".
I think they just don't get it. Early detection shouldn't be divisive or cause anyone to be irked or angry. It is an opportunity to save a life! We all should be delighted to find a smaller breast cancer rather than a larger one. Even in the article they note two papers that show that whole breast ultrasounds in dense breast tissue find 3-5 breast cancers that mammograms miss. Ultrasound doesn't replace mammograms, which are the best breast cancer screening tool we have, and do save lives, but adds the ability to find tumors that may be invisible to the mammogram. They didn't mention that in those studies using ultrasounds as screening, with mammograms, that the cancers were small and most could be successfully treated. I have no doubt that with long-term follow-up, we will find the ultrasound to be life-saving, just like we ultimately have found mammograms to be!
And how the process works is not difficult: the mammogram facility tells you about your breast density and you find a place skilled in whole breast ultrasound and get one. I spend much of may day doing them. Most issues with dense breast tissue are solved with whole breast ultrasound, some may benefit from breast MRI or Molecular Breast Imaging. The ultrasound is a good place to start for most women: no IV, no preparation, no compression, no loud noise.
Find out your density, seize the opportunity, get your whole breast ultrasound!
Together we can prevent 86,000 breast cancer cases each year!
This content is general and not personal medical advice.
Thank you, Dr. Winsett for your thoughtful and insightful take on the New York Times article. Please post it to the "comment" section of the NYT article so that your "non-divisive" position can be enjoyed by all!
ReplyDelete