Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: How Mammograms Improve Survival but Not Mortality [View all]lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)4. There must be a flaw with the article. Because the contradictory things it says can't be reconciled.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
76 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
What's most surprising to me is that this seems to undercut the "early detection is best" narrative
Recursion
Feb 2014
#2
There must be a flaw with the article. Because the contradictory things it says can't be reconciled.
lumberjack_jeff
Feb 2014
#4
Without reading the source article, I might argue that survival time has not increased.
hedgehog
Feb 2014
#49
I'm suspicious that the phrase "increased survival time" implies something that isn't true.
hedgehog
Feb 2014
#67
Any women who has found a tumor by mammography, that could not be felt manually, I would say has
lostincalifornia
Feb 2014
#6
Yes, this seems to contradict that: earlier detection is not decreasing mortality
Recursion
Feb 2014
#7
I would want to know if the treatments that were applied were the most effective ones. It is well
lostincalifornia
Feb 2014
#8
I agree. I added more comments to my post also, wanting to know the criteria used in reading the
lostincalifornia
Feb 2014
#17
the only way a firm diagnosis can be made is with a biopsy. If a mammogram shows a suspicious area,
lostincalifornia
Feb 2014
#26
It is a question of risk verses reward. People need to make their own informed decision. The most
lostincalifornia
Feb 2014
#29
It is my understanding that many times when any tumor is removed this promotes metastication
AngryAmish
Feb 2014
#75
As far as unnecessary treatment goes, there is some concern that we are finding and treating
hedgehog
Feb 2014
#50
There is no rule that if you are at a certain age it will be aggressive. The only way to determine
lostincalifornia
Feb 2014
#66
Actually that is NOT true with prostate cancer. If a prostate cancer is found, and it is localized
lostincalifornia
Feb 2014
#31
The point is that "active surveillance" is now an option in many low grade and small cancers,
pnwmom
Feb 2014
#34
No. This isn't a sudden spate of research. This 90,000 subject study has studied these
pnwmom
Feb 2014
#16
Unfortunately (and I am no expert) it seems to take a long time for new methods to be accepted
alarimer
Feb 2014
#44
So why aren't mortality rates lower among those who have received mammograms?
Recursion
Feb 2014
#18
That is one thing, or at least set up consistent standards, but you can't just mixed different age
lostincalifornia
Feb 2014
#21
The biggest problem with mammograms are women with dense breasts. Those women should request an MRI
lostincalifornia
Feb 2014
#28
Wow, that says everything, and was one of my very questions. Did the radiologists all adhere to the
lostincalifornia
Feb 2014
#20
If true, it means modern medicine hasn't gotten anywhere in the war on cancer.
reformist2
Feb 2014
#36
I refuse to have my breasts smashed between two flat plates & irradiated ever again.
scarletwoman
Feb 2014
#45
Deborah Rhodes: A test that finds 3x more breast tumors, and why it's not available to you
LiberalAndProud
Feb 2014
#46