HealingWell
Search Close Search
☰

mammograms and PSA testing

Support Forums
>
Prostate Cancer
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply
❬ ❬ Previous Thread |Next Thread ❭ ❭
Posted 11/19/2009 7:30 PM (GMT 0)
As you have most likely read in the news a few weeks ago was controversy over PSA Screening. Now the news is on Mammogram screening. Not trying to start a huge debate here but its interesting that this news has come out as the new Health Care plan is being talked about.

Once again though it seems that the ladies are making more headlines on this then the men did on the PSA testing.

Larry

Posted 11/20/2009 11:55 AM (GMT 0)
It'd be nice if they'd just say it in ENGLISH:

Ladies if you're 47 years old and you've had 7 CLEAR mamograms seven years in a row - odds are really really good that you can skip the test next year.

Course the kicker is - if you skip a years AND then find something the next time - you'll always wonder if you could have found it sooner.

Posted 11/20/2009 1:39 PM (GMT 0)
Guys,

Let's remember that skipping a mamogram is much more serious because breast cancer generally grows at a faster pace. I agree with Larry, this is only the beginning. Tighten your safety belts because this ride is going to be rough.

Len
Posted 11/20/2009 3:24 PM (GMT 0)
And the saga continues. Today the newspaper story appeared that these same folks are now recommending an every other year or 3 year schedule for women to get pap smears for cervical cancer.

As the national healthcare reform continues to grow we are going to see more guidelines about lesser tests and treatments continue to grow. Maybe less testing is required, but it certainly seems as though the most upfront factor is the reduction of healthcare coverage for systematic screenings for just about anything.

Sonny
Posted 11/20/2009 3:30 PM (GMT 0)
I think I read that both the PAP and Mammogram studies were begun in 2007 and are just now completing and the results being published. If so, then this was just a case of baad timing, rather than any future healthcare plan conspiracy.

From the AP:
"The timing of the Pap guidelines is coincidence, said ACOG, which began reviewing its recommendations in late 2007 and published the update Friday in the journal Obstetrics &"
Posted 11/20/2009 4:04 PM (GMT 0)
A agree with James that I don't think it is a conspiracy, but I do believe we are seeing the begining of trend that is starting with screening and will eventually move to procedures.and medications. The sad fact is that health care is too expensive and the government will have to find ways to cut costs. The easiest way to get the biggest bang is to limit screeing and go with least cost procedures and meds. The thought is that some people will die, but society in general will be better off. This is nothing new as all countries that have government paid health have limitations on screening, procedures and drugs. We may not like it, but it's a pretty common approach and makes a lot of sense if you are considering the general welfare vs the individual.
JohnT
Posted 11/20/2009 4:18 PM (GMT 0)

Those of you who have seen my responses in other threads know I'm generally a pro testing advocate.  At least in the mammogram case, there is some possible validity to an argument for reduced testing because the test itself (which involves radiation) does introduce some negative health risk (i.e. cancers induced by the accumulated radiation dose itself).  So, a relative risk analysis is warranted.  But this seems to get dwarfed by the rhetoric from those who are really just shilling for cost rationing under the guise of 'protecting the public'.  I don't have any facts on the relative risks of the test.  As a result, I'm still on the testing side on this one.

In the PCA case, there is no appreciable risk to testing.  So there's really NO excuse for the nonsense being spouted.  It's just a bad Sci Fi scenario ala 'Logan's Run'.

I reject the notion that says we have to accept the status quo on the sophistication of our health care technology.  We need to continue to research and develop better tests that are more specific with less risk.  The answer to our current problems is MORE technology, not less.  My concern with the rationing philosophy is that it not only throttles the use of the diagnostics we have now, it also greatly reduces the incentive and funding for developing better diagnostics.


Posted 11/20/2009 4:32 PM (GMT 0)
I am not impressed by the ACS, USPSTF, and now the ACOG... The clear message is that screening saves lives, just not enough of them. I do not and will not ever stand with them for placing a price on saving lives. As a cancer survivor, I find it very interesting on the timing of these sudden ground breaking announcements about screening. My mother died of cervical cancer last year at 71 and I know there is no study started in 2007 that has definitive results that should change a protocol that has been in place for decades.

I do believe there are outside influences. And I will leave it at that...

Tony
Posted 11/20/2009 6:12 PM (GMT 0)
Tony, your sentiments are the same as mine on this subject. I will never compromise my conviction on the need for early testing with all these cancer types.
Posted 11/20/2009 7:02 PM (GMT 0)
The group/organization that did the test have been doing these tests for years.... As I  mentioned before - according to the odd/statistics - if you've been cancer free 7 out of 7 tries - odds are you'll be clean next year...This is even better news if you are a low risk person... So I don't this is any sort of c onspiracy. On the other hand - I've neer been a car crash but I put on my seatbelt every time...
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply