Breast Exams revisited.

[Buster]

oooo, under any other circumstances your last sentence or two would be funny as hell..but James, I think this was not in very good taste at all...this IS a rather touchy subject you know...

 

[nnuut]

I've known women in their 20s and 30s that found a lump with self examiantion and it saved their life. Have you ever known someone that died with breast cancer, it is one horrible way to go. For Christs Sake find it early.

 

[James48843]

Oh lordy, here we go again. I can see it now.

A few days ago the group issued new recommendations of breast cancer screening, and everyone went nuts.

This morning- they issued new recommendations on cervical cancer screening- PAP smears- and recommended fewer of them, based on the scientific data.

I can see the arrows flying already.....
----------------------------------------------------------
New cervical cancer screening guidelines released

By Saundra Young, CNN Medical Producer

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The new mammogram recommendations out earlier this week caused quite an uproar. Now comes another change in screening tests for women -- this one for cervical cancer.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) releases new guidelines Friday, saying women don't need their first cervical cancer screening -- or Pap test -- until they're 21 years old. And, they don't need followup examinations as often as previously recommended.

According to the guidelines, women younger than 30 should be screened every two years, instead of annually. Women 30 or older can be examined once every three years.

"The tradition of doing a Pap test every year has not been supported by recent scientific evidence," said Dr. Alan G. Waxman, who developed the document for ACOG's Committee on Practice Bulletins-Gynecology. "A review of the evidence to date shows that screening at less frequent intervals prevents cervical cancer just as well, has decreased costs, and avoids unnecessary interventions that could be harmful."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/11/20/cervical.cancer.guidelines/

 

[burrocrat]

so no more checkin out

View attachment 7300

and no more cervical exams

?anyone got a pic for this one?

next will be the prostrate thing

?don't want to see that one?

some of my best recollections come from playing doctor, now it's good luck finding one who will accept your plan.

where are we headed?

c'mon buster i know you got the file storage capacity for this one.

happy thanksgiving.

 

[Viva_La_Migra]

Oh lordy, here we go again. I can see it now.

A few days ago the group issued new recommendations of breast cancer screening, and everyone went nuts.

This morning- they issued new recommendations on cervical cancer screening- PAP smears- and recommended fewer of them, based on the scientific data.

I can see the arrows flying already.....
----------------------------------------------------------
New cervical cancer screening guidelines released

By Saundra Young, CNN Medical Producer

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The new mammogram recommendations out earlier this week caused quite an uproar. Now comes another change in screening tests for women -- this one for cervical cancer.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) releases new guidelines Friday, saying women don't need their first cervical cancer screening -- or Pap test -- until they're 21 years old. And, they don't need followup examinations as often as previously recommended.

According to the guidelines, women younger than 30 should be screened every two years, instead of annually. Women 30 or older can be examined once every three years.

"The tradition of doing a Pap test every year has not been supported by recent scientific evidence," said Dr. Alan G. Waxman, who developed the document for ACOG's Committee on Practice Bulletins-Gynecology. "A review of the evidence to date shows that screening at less frequent intervals prevents cervical cancer just as well, has decreased costs, and avoids unnecessary interventions that could be harmful."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/11/20/cervical.cancer.guidelines/

I think it's a vast right wing conspiracy designed to eliminate soccer moms from the voting pool! After all, the Republican health plan is for people to "die quickly" right?

Might be time to invest in Oxycontin stock.

 

[Buster]

Might be time to invest in Oxycontin stock.

Or medical marijuana

 

[Viva_La_Migra]

Or medical marijuana

Maybe when I retire. Don't want to lose my job over a little weed!

 

[James48843]

From today's New York Times-
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/weekinreview/22kolata.html

Get a Mammogram- No, Don't. Repeat
November 21, 2009
By GINA KOLATA

The current dispute over mammograms gives many people who’ve been around since the 1980s a sense of déjà vu. Like archeologists arguing endlessly over the same set of bones, cancer specialists, it can seem, have been arguing endlessly over pretty much the same set of data.

The problem is that the screening test is not very helpful in preventing breast cancer deaths. Current estimates are that it reduces the death rate by 15 percent. If it were completely effective it would reduce the death rate by 100 percent. And screening has some downsides. It leads to false positives and unnecessary biopsies.

But more important, and only recently recognized, it leads to overdiagnosis — the test is finding cancers that grow so slowly that if they were left alone they would never be noticed or cause any problem in a woman’s lifetime. Since the harmless cancers look the same as deadly cancers, they are treated as if they are potentially lethal, with surgery, chemotherapy and radiation.

So the arguments continue to rage over risks and benefits, and over how strongly to recommend mammograms, and for whom, just as they have for decades:

1963 Health Insurance Plan of New York, or HIP, begins first mammography trial.
1971 HIP reports that mammography reduces breast cancer deaths by 30 percent.
1977-83 Four randomized trials are begun in Europe; eventually, they find that mammography cuts the breast cancer death rate by up to 30 percent. But two in Canada find no benefit for women in their 40s, and find a breast examination equally effective for women over 50.
1979 A National Institutes of Health conference recommends annual screening for women 50 and older. It supports screening for women in their 40s only if they have had cancer or a family history of it.
1980s After sharp debate, the National Cancer Institute recommends routine screening for women in their 40s.
1989 Eleven health care organizations recommend an initial baseline mammogram for women age 35 to 39, and mammograms every one to two years for women over 40.
1992 The American Cancer Society drops its recommendation for baseline mammography for women 35 to 39.
1993 Citing growing evidence from randomized trials, the National Cancer Institute drops its recommendation for screening in the 40s.
1997 A National Institutes of Health conference concludes that there is not enough evidence to recommend routine screening for women in their 40s. But the Senate votes to encourage an institute advisory board to reject that conclusion, and the institute recommends beginning mammography in the 40s and continuing every one to two years.
1997 The American Cancer Society recommends annual mammography for all women over 40, and clinical breast exams close to or, preferably, just before the annual mammogram.
2001 A Danish study questions the findings of earlier trials and suggests that mammography’s value may have been overstated.
2002 After reviewing the research, an independent panel at the National Cancer Institute decides it can no longer make a recommendation on whether women should be screened. The institute concludes that the new analysis did not refute evidence that mammography is effective, and stands by its earlier recommendation: women 40 and older should have routine screening.
2007 Guidelines issued by the American College of Physicians acknowledge that regular mammograms for women in their 40s can reduce the risk of dying from breast cancer by a modest amount. But a very high percentage will get false positive results that lead to unnecessary biopsies, increased costs and risks of injury. The college recommends that women in their 40s and their doctors periodically evaluate their risk to guide screening decisions.
2008 A Norwegian study in the Archives of Internal Medicine suggests that some invasive breast cancers may go away without treatment, raising the possibility that some cancers detected by mammograms may “spontaneously regress.
November 2009 New guidelines published in The Annals of Internal Medicine recommend that most women start regular breast cancer screening at age 50, not 40, and that women age 50 to 74 should have mammograms less frequently — every two years, rather than every year. Doctors should also stop teaching women to examine their breasts on a regular basis, according to the guidelines issued by an independent panel of experts in prevention and primary care appointed by the federal Department of Health and Human Services.

 

[Buster]

Maybe when I retire. Don't want to lose my job over a little weed!

Not to possess silly

Originally Posted by Viva La Migra
Might be time to invest in Oxycontin stock.

Is investing in Legal Medical Marijuana stock illegal?

 

[James48843]

Mammograms May Boost Cancer Risk
in High-Risk Women

By Kathleen Doheny
HealthDay Reporter
Tue Dec 1, 5:03 pm ET

TUESDAY, Dec. 1 (HealthDay News) -- Mammograms may actually boost the risk of breast cancer in some high-risk women, a new study suggests.

Dutch researchers analyzed six previously published studies, four examining the effect of low-dose radiation exposure from mammography among women with the genetic mutation boosting breast cancer risk and two looking at the effect of radiation from screening in women with a family history of breast cancer.

"Women who were exposed before the age of 20 had a 2.5 times increased risk of breast cancer," said Martine Jansen-van der Weide, an epidemiologist and researcher at the University Medical Center Groningen, in the Netherlands. So did women with five or more exposures.

She was to present the findings Monday at the Radiological Society of North America's annual meeting in Chicago

More: http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20091201/hl_hsn/mammogramsmayboostcancerriskinhighriskwomen

 

[James48843]

Not to possess silly

Is investing in Legal Medical Marijuana stock illegal?

Stock symbols= for Medical Marijuana stocks--

How about these:

OTC: MJNA (Medical Marijuana, Inc)

OTC: HESG (Health Sciences Group, Inc.)

Press release this week: "Health Sciences Group, Inc. (Pink Sheets:HESG) would like to announce that its lawyer Mr. Robert Young is aggressively seeking realtors in the Los Angeles area to open up Health Sciences offices. The company intends on pursuing with new consultant agreement under Marijuana Inc. a joint venture to market management services."

OTC: CBIS ( Cannibas Sciences, Inc.)



Any others out there?

 

[James48843]

Overuse of CT scans will lead to new cancer deaths, study shows

Each year that today's scanners are used, 14,500 deaths could result, researchers say. When healthy people are exposed to the radiation, the imaging may create more problems than it solves.

Widespread overuse of CT scans and variations in radiation doses caused by different machines -- operated by technicians following an array of procedures -- are subjecting patients to high radiation doses that will ultimately lead to tens of thousands of new cancer cases and deaths, researchers reported today.

Several recent studies have suggested that patients have been unnecessarily exposed to radiation from CTs or have received excessive amounts, but two new studies published Tuesday in the Archives of Internal Medicine are the first to quantify the extent of exposure and the related risks.


More: http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-sci-ct-scans15-2009dec15,0,3370000.story

 

[Viva_La_Migra]

Overuse of CT scans will lead to new cancer deaths, study shows

Each year that today's scanners are used, 14,500 deaths could result, researchers say. When healthy people are exposed to the radiation, the imaging may create more problems than it solves.

Widespread overuse of CT scans and variations in radiation doses caused by different machines -- operated by technicians following an array of procedures -- are subjecting patients to high radiation doses that will ultimately lead to tens of thousands of new cancer cases and deaths, researchers reported today.

Several recent studies have suggested that patients have been unnecessarily exposed to radiation from CTs or have received excessive amounts, but two new studies published Tuesday in the Archives of Internal Medicine are the first to quantify the extent of exposure and the related risks.


More: http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-sci-ct-scans15-2009dec15,0,3370000.story

Guess what else won't be covered by government controlled healthcare? First mamograms, now CT Scans. All they need now is the study showing MRI's are unnecessary in 75% of the cases and the trifecta will be complete.