A new set of breast cancer screening guidelines is sparking debate. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, an independent panel of medical experts, advises women to get their first mammogram at age 50 and every two years after that. But the American Cancer Society recommends getting screened from age 45. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists puts the starting age at 40. Dr. David Agus, director of USC Norris Westside Cancer Center, joins “CBS This Morning” to discuss how to navigate the differing recommendations.
Study author, Dr. Rebecca Hubbard, discusses the findings of two studies on mammography screening. She explains that false-positive recalls are part of the process for mammography and should not deter women from participating in regular screening.
A new study found that MRI screening can help detect more cancer in women with dense breast tissue, but can also lead to false positive results.. www.cbc.ca/1.5376604. »»» Subscribe to The National to watch more videos here: https://www.youtube.com/user/CBCTheNational?sub_confirmation=1. Voice Your Opinion & Connect With Us Online: The National Updates on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thenational. The National Updates on Twitter: https://twitter.com/CBCTheNational. »»» »»» »»» »»» »»». The National is CBC Television’s flagship news program. Airing six days a week, the show delivers news, feature documentaries and analysis from some of Canada’s leading journalists.
This video describes Bayes’ Rule and its application to medical testing. Given the probability of a certain disease, we are given the tools to update the probability using Bayesian thinking. Base rates and conditional probability are discussed.. Section 3: Probabilities, Conditioning, and Bayesian Thinking (4/5). This is the 12th of a total of 40 short videos, which are divided into 11 sections.. A course to learn the basic concepts and tools to help us make better decisions under uncertainty, take calculated risks, and reduce the stress and regrets that often come with decision making.. If you would like to learn more, please subscribe to this channel and read the textbook at www.probabilitycourse.com.
People who got a false-positive result on a breast or prostate cancer screening test were more likely to adhere to screening guidelines for breast cancer and colon cancer going forward, researchers found. False positive test results: This occurs when a man has an abnormal PSA test but does not have prostate cancer. False positive test results often lead to unnecessary tests, like a biopsy of the prostate. They may cause men to worry about their health.
Older men are more likely to have false positive test results. Possible Harms from Diagnosis. Screening finds prostate cancer in some men who would never have.
Routine cancer screening can save lives. It can also cause serious harm. This is the “double-edged sword” of cancer screening, says Otis Webb Brawley, MD, chief medical officer at. Screening programs allow to detect the disease when it is in its initial stages and, thus, to be able to treat it in time and increase the chances of cure.
But, despite its clear benefits, there. False Positive Breast Cancer Screening In a false positive, a screening test indicates that a mass in the breast is likely to be cancerous. This typically triggers additional imaging such as.
Other screening tests can find cancer early when it’s small, hasn’t spread, and might be easier to treat. The benefits of screening tests should be weighed against any risks of the tests themselves. Risks may include anxiety, pain, bleeding, or other side effects. And screening isn’t perfect.
Sometimes screening misses cancer. Commonly used screening tests, such as mammography for breast cancer or prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for prostate cancer, have false-positive rates per screen in the range of 5% to 10%; with repeat screening, cumulative false-positive rates for these tests are substantially higher.[2-4] Follow-up invasive diagnostic procedures, such as a. Screening can create an illusion that people with the disease are living longer. This works in two ways. First, screening can detect a lot of trivial cancers that won’t ever lead to death.
The benefits of screening mammography need to be balanced against its harms, which include: False-positive results. False-positive results occur when radiologists see an abnormality (that is, a potential “positive”) on a mammogram but no cancer is actually present. July 1, 2010 Screening men for prostate cancer cut mortality rates by about half in a large study, researchers report..
The screening test under investigation is called a prostate-specific.
List of related literature:
Similar debates surround other mass screening programs, including the smear test for cervical cancer (a disease that we will revisit in chapter 7, when we reconsider the cost-effectiveness and equality of vaccination programs), the PSA test for prostate cancer, and screens for lung cancer.
Screening (using PSA levels) is associated with false-positive results, unnecessary anxiety, biopsies, and potential complications of treatment of some cancers that may never have affected a client’s health (ACS, 2012b).
Bowel cancer screening cuts deaths from bowel cancer, but does not increase life length overall: it comes with false positives and false negatives, and some risk, albeit small, of harms arising from the consequences of screening.
from The Patient Paradox by Margaret McCartney Pinter & Martin Limited, 2013
The infrequency of a particular cancer, such as ovarian cancer, and the potential harm from evaluating and treating with false positive tests both present major hurdles to safe and effective cancer screening.
from Women and Health by Marlene B. Goldman, Rebecca Troisi, Kathryn M. Rexrode Elsevier Science, 2012
Therefore, especially for cancer patients with family history of disease, genetic tests help reveal important information about the prognosis, the risk of metastasis, and sometimes even the possible success of the treatment.
Mass screening programmes instituted at great cost for early cancer detection performed at the optimal season may generate fewer false negative, fewer false positive and more true positive test results, enhancing the effectiveness of cancer screening and substantially diminishing its costs.
Screening and detecting cancer in asymptomatic patients should ideally convey a survival advantage, and screening tests should have good sensitivity and specificity to reduce the number of false-negative and false-positive results.
Furthermore, interventions unrelated to screening can lead to early cancer detection.
from Journal of the National Cancer Institute: JNCI. by National Cancer Institute (U.S.), National Institutes of Health (U.S.) U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, 2010
There are effective screening modalities for breast cancer, colorectal cancers, melanoma, and cervical cancers, whereas no compelling evidence exists for the value of screening for lung cancer.
Kutluk Oktay, MD, FACOG is one of the world's foremost experts in fertility preservation as well as ovarian stimulation and in vitro fertilization for infertility treatments. He developed and performed the world's first ovarian transplantation procedures as well as pioneered new ovarian stimulation protocols for embryo and oocyte freezing for breast and endometrial cancer patients.
Repeated exposures to unnecessary medical radiation is extremely anxiety-inducing because it can cause double-strand breaks in tumor suppressor DNA and in metastasis-suppressor DNA and there is absolutely no genetics evaluation for individual women to see if their DNA is susceptible to this radiation damage. The new guidelines of chronological age cuttoff, rather than genomic age cutoff, is statistical without application to the genome vulnerability of individual patients. Which absence of scientific protocol is echoed in drug prescription: no reliable tests for prediction of drug response, monitoring of drug response, intercepting adverse drug response. The same with medical radiation. -The medical profession needs to start policing itself. Let’s not overlook to mention another reason that a false negative is not necessarily owed to a suddenly-developed cancerous lesion inbetween mammograms, but rather that the mammogram has extremely low validity in that it fails to image all cancers. It misses very small cancers, and it misses tumors in dense breast tissue. I have had a false positive resulting in biopsy, and a friend had a false negative. There is no excuse for the medical establishment to push this low-validity, low-reliability, test onto women and especially no excuse for subjecting them to repeat exposures to low-dose ionizing radiation. Especially when far safer and more reliable screening tests are available, e.g., breast MRI and ultrasound with elastography. It’s just outrageous to repeatedly expose women to medical radiation just for a test with such low validity.
Ultra Sound is a BETTER diagnostic tool, it can detect smaller abnormalities and it does not rupture cysts. It does not expose the woman to radiation which is far more than you’d get from dental x-rays and they shield you at the dentist office. According to the mfg’rs recommendations, they are supposed to use heavy shielded blankets over your thyroid. Have never seen it offered to me. So I just refuse to take one again.
I was badly bruised the last time and promised myself I would not do this again.
I have had an ultra sound and it was negative. I nursed 3 children 2.75 years each so statistically I am unlikely to have breast cancer even though my mother and sister had their cancers after age 60 which is post menopause. My mother’s cancer was slow growing they told her and if she’d been given the option of not treating it, she’d have likely died of something else, she died of complications of a hip fracture as they tested her cancer in a lab against estrogen, put her on tomoxophen (testosteroe) which blocks remaining estrogen. Without estrogen women don’t absorb any calcium at all and so she had such severe brittle bone from that, without falling, her upper thigh bone shattered. She died of complications in the hospital for 6 months in a coma being tortured to death, going in, wiping out the hospital born infection she got from the surgery they performed.
No thank you. I was supposed to be called when they went in, opened up the incision to replace the bone on account of an infection not touched by antibiotics. It remained open after the surgery and they put her in a sitz bath to keep it clean where she lost so much blood that she lost the ability to speak and went into a coma. I was with her when they did the sitz bath and the water was so red with blood you could not see her body below the water!!! The edges of the wound they made were in such a state of mush they could not sew her back up. This had to be wiped out 3x’s a day. I could not understand why they did not amputate which was the better option considering her health. But then that would have been kinder. It was a blessing when she went into a coma.
No, I don’t want you toxic drugs. I’ll die someday, with both breasts and with my mental faculties still intact thank you very much!
Going to school makes some men doctors, others it makes butchers! I know which kind “cared” for my mother.
I’ve always been amazed people don’t go for a second opinion when it comes to these life-changing-medical-illnesses. I would go for a second opinion and I wouldn’t say anything to the second Dr. about being diagnosed (positive or negative). That way you get a true second opionion! Matter of fact, I would have three or four “2nd” opionis…
Repeated exposures to unnecessary medical radiation is extremely anxiety-inducing because it can cause double-strand breaks in tumor suppressor DNA and in metastasis-suppressor DNA and there is absolutely no genetics evaluation for individual women to see if their DNA is susceptible to this radiation damage. The new guidelines of chronological age cuttoff, rather than genomic age cutoff, is statistical without application to the genome vulnerability of individual patients. Which absence of scientific protocol is echoed in drug prescription: no reliable tests for prediction of drug response, monitoring of drug response, intercepting adverse drug response. The same with medical radiation. -The medical profession needs to start policing itself. Let’s not overlook to mention another reason that a false negative is not necessarily owed to a suddenly-developed cancerous lesion inbetween mammograms, but rather that the mammogram has extremely low validity in that it fails to image all cancers. It misses very small cancers, and it misses tumors in dense breast tissue. I have had a false positive resulting in biopsy, and a friend had a false negative. There is no excuse for the medical establishment to push this low-validity, low-reliability, test onto women and especially no excuse for subjecting them to repeat exposures to low-dose ionizing radiation. Especially when far safer and more reliable screening tests are available, e.g., breast MRI and ultrasound with elastography. It’s just outrageous to repeatedly expose women to medical radiation just for a test with such low validity.
Ultra Sound is a BETTER diagnostic tool, it can detect smaller abnormalities and it does not rupture cysts. It does not expose the woman to radiation which is far more than you’d get from dental x-rays and they shield you at the dentist office. According to the mfg’rs recommendations, they are supposed to use heavy shielded blankets over your thyroid. Have never seen it offered to me. So I just refuse to take one again.
I was badly bruised the last time and promised myself I would not do this again.
I have had an ultra sound and it was negative. I nursed 3 children 2.75 years each so statistically I am unlikely to have breast cancer even though my mother and sister had their cancers after age 60 which is post menopause. My mother’s cancer was slow growing they told her and if she’d been given the option of not treating it, she’d have likely died of something else, she died of complications of a hip fracture as they tested her cancer in a lab against estrogen, put her on tomoxophen (testosteroe) which blocks remaining estrogen. Without estrogen women don’t absorb any calcium at all and so she had such severe brittle bone from that, without falling, her upper thigh bone shattered. She died of complications in the hospital for 6 months in a coma being tortured to death, going in, wiping out the hospital born infection she got from the surgery they performed.
No thank you. I was supposed to be called when they went in, opened up the incision to replace the bone on account of an infection not touched by antibiotics. It remained open after the surgery and they put her in a sitz bath to keep it clean where she lost so much blood that she lost the ability to speak and went into a coma. I was with her when they did the sitz bath and the water was so red with blood you could not see her body below the water!!! The edges of the wound they made were in such a state of mush they could not sew her back up. This had to be wiped out 3x’s a day. I could not understand why they did not amputate which was the better option considering her health. But then that would have been kinder. It was a blessing when she went into a coma.
No, I don’t want you toxic drugs. I’ll die someday, with both breasts and with my mental faculties still intact thank you very much!
Going to school makes some men doctors, others it makes butchers! I know which kind “cared” for my mother.
I’ve always been amazed people don’t go for a second opinion when it comes to these life-changing-medical-illnesses. I would go for a second opinion and I wouldn’t say anything to the second Dr. about being diagnosed (positive or negative). That way you get a true second opionion! Matter of fact, I would have three or four “2nd” opionis…
With all due respect Gayle we men after 30 have to endure some doc sticking his finger up our butt to screen for prostrate cancer.