The New York Times has a really excellent article on the whole mammogram debate. It goes into the whole "over-diagnosis" issue, which I find fascinating. Scary, but fascinating.
Because I still remember the scary early days when I was told I had DCIS, and no one could tell me whether or not it was harmful and should be treated. Then, of course, during my biopsy of the DCIS, an invasive tumor popped up on the screen, making that whole issue moot, and I had a mastectomy.
There's one paragraph in the NYT article that intrigues me, though, because I don't think my cancer fits into any of these three categories. If it does, it's the first category, the fast growing ones that are FUTILE to diagnosis early.
One way of looking at cancer is as three different diseases, Dr. Harris said. One type grows so fast that early diagnosis is futile. Another grows so slowly it does not need to be found early to be cured. And as many as a quarter of those slowing-growing cancers would never be noticed in a woman’s lifetime. Cancers in the third group can be cured if they are caught early. But, Dr. Harris said, at least with breast cancers, that third group makes up only 15 percent of the deadly cancers.
Someone else used that "futile" word to me once: Don't Write Me Off
Read the article: Behind Cancer Guidelines
Read more: Cancer News
Support this blog:
@ Jeanne Sather 2009.
I know what they're driving at here, but I really wish they wouldn't use the word "cure" to refer to breast cancer at all. It's not curable. Ever. Even the mildest forms of it that go away and never come back aren't "cured." They just failed to come back and eventually the person died of something else.
Posted by: Karla | November 26, 2009 at 05:57 AM