Prime II

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Breast-Cancer Screening From Age 40 Would Save More Lives, Experts Say

Members don't see this ad.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user

Breast-Cancer Screening From Age 40 Would Save More Lives, Experts Say

Wait so we are gonna increase screening but then when women are diagnosed? We tell them it’s nothing and not to worry?

Or no wait they’ll be getting surgery and hormone therapy but be lectured about the evils of RT.

I really hate being an oncologist

Also didn’t he USPSTF and the ACS hate each other because of their differences in screening? What gives?
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 4 users
Wait so we are gonna increase screening but then when women are diagnosed? We tell them it’s nothing and not to worry?

Or no wait they’ll be getting surgery and hormone therapy but be lectured about the evils of RT.

I really hate being an oncologist

Also didn’t he USPSTF and the ACS hate each other because of their differences in screening? What gives?
Usptf the same organization that killed PSA screening a decade ago. So maybe there is something to this
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
Good to tell patients they have cancer earlier but will do everything humanly possible to wait to treat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Good to tell patients they have cancer earlier but will do everything humanly possible to wait to treat.

Great to know screening guidelines have become another game to be manipulated of course under the guise of good government
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
My wifey insists on annual mammograms and cervix bx "But it makes no sense from a population standpoint" has zero weight.

And, as noted, as with prostate G6, what do you do with a low grade breast tiny lesion? Cut it? Radiate it? Hormonalize it?

Our specialty is hell bent on destroying itself, but surely we can get behind the potential for more cases!

Breast in 2023 like prostate in 2005 please.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Pair this new recommendation with the Livi APBI protocol, and hard to argue its not good for patients, and our field, on some level.
 
Wait so we are gonna increase screening but then when women are diagnosed? We tell them it’s nothing and not to worry?

Or no wait they’ll be getting surgery and hormone therapy but be lectured about the evils of RT.

I really hate being an oncologist

Also didn’t he USPSTF and the ACS hate each other because of their differences in screening? What gives?

Where's Vinay when you need him?

I feel like we are so close to everyone realizing that so much of medicine is political, biased, and often recommendations carry emotional baggage. But yet so far. :(
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Where's Vinay when you need him?

I feel like we are so close to everyone realizing that so much of medicine is political, biased, and often recommendations carry emotional baggage. But yet so far. :(
I usually don't go down the medicine in politics rabbit hole.

But can someone explain to me why mammograms with a number needed to invite to screening of 1667 to prevent one death are being recommended by the USPSTF (https://www.thelancet.com/article/S1470-2045(20)30398-3/fulltext) while PSA with a number needed to invite to screening of 221 (Results from 22 years of Followup in the Göteborg Randomized Population-Based Prostate Cancer Screening Trial) to prevent one death is recommended against or as "shared decision making"?
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
I usually don't go down the medicine in politics rabbit hole.

But can someone explain to me why mammograms with a number needed to invite to screening of 1667 to prevent one death are being recommended by the USPSTF (https://www.thelancet.com/article/S1470-2045(20)30398-3/fulltext) while PSA with a number needed to invite to screening of 221 (Results from 22 years of Followup in the Göteborg Randomized Population-Based Prostate Cancer Screening Trial) to prevent one death is recommended against or as "shared decision making"?
Breast cancer lobby is extremely powerful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Breast cancer lobby is extremely powerful.

Yep, they tried to back off the mmg screening recs a few years ago and got absolutely torched in the press/online/etc. Last time they'll ever make that mistake.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I usually don't go down the medicine in politics rabbit hole.

But can someone explain to me why mammograms with a number needed to invite to screening of 1667 to prevent one death are being recommended by the USPSTF (https://www.thelancet.com/article/S1470-2045(20)30398-3/fulltext) while PSA with a number needed to invite to screening of 221 (Results from 22 years of Followup in the Göteborg Randomized Population-Based Prostate Cancer Screening Trial) to prevent one death is recommended against or as "shared decision making"?

Breast cancer lobby is extremely powerful.
There ain't no Race for the Cure for prostate afaik, ain't no "save the prostates" T-shirt afaik, etc etc.

Time for men's lib?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I usually don't go down the medicine in politics rabbit hole.

But can someone explain to me why mammograms with a number needed to invite to screening of 1667 to prevent one death are being recommended by the USPSTF (https://www.thelancet.com/article/S1470-2045(20)30398-3/fulltext) while PSA with a number needed to invite to screening of 221 (Results from 22 years of Followup in the Göteborg Randomized Population-Based Prostate Cancer Screening Trial) to prevent one death is recommended against or as "shared decision making"?

LDCT for lung cancer has entered the chat.

[Crowd boos and throws pink water balloons]
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 3 users
LDCT be like:

Slim Jim Food GIF
 
Top