tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9263167.post476476686550938195..comments2024-03-28T15:17:43.056-04:00Comments on Stayin' Alive: As Dr. Ruth is always careful to say . . .Cervanteshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11302076828795198187noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9263167.post-15686289203877654452009-03-18T19:44:00.000-04:002009-03-18T19:44:00.000-04:00we may be talking apples and oranges here, trying ...we may be talking apples and oranges here, trying to compare mammos and PSA tests. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/18/AR2009031801623.html?hpid=topnewskathy a.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14479337952651746193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9263167.post-41232002441080553562009-03-18T17:10:00.000-04:002009-03-18T17:10:00.000-04:00i still think baselines and occasional screenings ...i still think baselines and occasional screenings are useful for mammos. can't speak to prostates; i don't own one, and the only other prostate cancer in the extended family [that i've heard about] was a slow one in a very elderly great-uncle-by-marriage.<BR/><BR/>my SIL's breast cancer was diagnosed a few years back by routine mammo, followed by surgical biopsy -- which actually removed all the cancer, although they went back in to be sure. it was staged 0/1, because it was tiny [1 cm.] and contained -- too small to be palpable, no spreading to other tissues. maybe this is the one in 2,000 case; but her outpatient surgery plus some very easy radiation was ever so much better than my sister's more extensive surgery, drains, and big ugly 4 months of chemo -- for starters.<BR/><BR/>no, i don't know if these cases are fair to compare -- or how representative they are. i do know, i can't go a decade without a check. and my daughter has a BC history with aunts on both sides -- she has to pay attention.kathy a.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14479337952651746193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9263167.post-8849315025722860322009-03-18T16:04:00.000-04:002009-03-18T16:04:00.000-04:00Well, your brother in law did not have prostate ca...Well, your brother in law did not have prostate cancer screening -- he had a diagnostic test because he had symptoms. That's an entirely different kettle of pirahnas. <BR/><BR/>Since your sister has had real breast cancer (not DCIS), your personal calculus about screening is different -- it makes much more sense for you than it does for women in general. What I'm talking about here is 100% population screening, not targeted testing of people at relatively high risk.Cervanteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11302076828795198187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9263167.post-33471080941581510432009-03-18T15:44:00.000-04:002009-03-18T15:44:00.000-04:00isn't this where access to medical care and advice...isn't this where access to medical care and advice on an individual level is important?<BR/><BR/>maybe, because you are in a medical setting, nearly everyone gets every recommended screening yearly. [i know that isn't true in practice.] and some regular folks do, too, because they are all organized and diligent. but a LOT of people do not do the yearly screenings, even with insurance, for one reason or another. <BR/><BR/>i'm not sure how this kind of trial relates to behaviors and outcomes in the real world. and as usual, this response is based on experiences in my own family, bolstered by experiences of friends -- anecdotal, in other words. but you hit on a bunch of issues that affect my family and others.<BR/><BR/>to start, you mention PSA screening for prostate cancer. my BIL [age 51] has/had prostate cancer; it was caught early; he had surgery and he's doing well. he got that test because he had some suspicious symptoms, and he asked about them. his outcome is good, because there was that testing. do i think my wonderful husband will go get a screening w/o a reason? no.<BR/><BR/>things are more complicated about mammography, in my family. my 3 female sibs and i are the sisterhood of lumpy breasts, and i am all in favor of checking that out -- plus, baseline mams are good references for later changes. we all had needle or surgical biopsies at some point, all negative in the past. our only aunt had/has ductal carcinoma in situ, which she described as "pre-cancerous," and she declined surgery but went with tamoxifan as a precaution, because one of her first cousins died of breast cancer. <BR/><BR/>i'm really bad with following recommended guidelines, so i never got around to the "yearly" mammogram for ~cough~ a decade or so, until one of my sisters was recently diagnosed with invasive ductal carcinoma, stage II, triple negative. that shit will scare you. i had no noticeable changes, but a repeat mammo and ultrasound turned up 2 tiny cysts. gotta go back in 6 months to "keep an eye" on them. <BR/><BR/>i'm as cynical [and lazy] as the next person about yearly screenings, but wouldn't want to deny baselines AND especially followups on any changes in circumstances: symptoms; a new lump; a new family history boosting danger; etc.kathy a.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14479337952651746193noreply@blogger.com