Some tumors are being found too early due to screenings, specialists say
Article Source: msnbc.com
from:msnbc.comSome early cancer overtreated; few want to wait
Seeded on Tue Jun 15, 2010 8:34 AM EDT (msnbc.com)
- msnbc.com sites & shows:
- TODAY
- Rock Center
- Nightly News
- Meet the Press
- Dateline
- Morning Joe
- Hardball
- Ed
- Maddow
- Last Word
- msnbc tv
Leave a Comment:
It makes you think that the doctors don't really know what they are doing, "A tumor found to early". That does not make any sense to me. I am very thankful they found my lung cancer "to early" that is why I am still alive today. Use all of the technology we have to keep people alive is what should be done. That is like saying let the fire get bigger so we can justify using all of our equipment. I guess that's why they call it "Practicing Medicine".
You're so right. It was found too late for my mother and father who died 9 years apart from lung cancer. And also for my wife's sister who died yesterday morning, also of lung cancer. Detecting that is just plain luck, for by the time there are any outward symptoms, it's too late.
I'm happy you caught yours in time. Take it as a sign that you have something important still left to accomplish in your life!
I agree HH32...My mother had a mastectomy and a year later they found another tumor in her other breast, which was benign at the time...She told them to take the other breast because she wasn't going to chance it becoming malignant and spread...Which actually happened to my sister....
I smell crap on this one...There is no way a tumor could be found "too early"...It's all about the money...
Before we over react I think we should take a step back. Because, let’s face it, most of our reactions to this article will be based on fear and not science.
Find out the facts of what they are saying before you start grabbing your pitch forks. Maybe talk to a doctor who has studied this and can explain why this is why it is.
The Science changes about as fast as our political system changes.
I fail to see how after YEARS of preaching screenings and early detection, and how the sooner it is caught the better you will be all of a sudden gets turned into a it was caught too soon.
I know how bad cancer can get. Best friends dad had colon/intestinal cancer. He went under the knife they removed almost 1/2 of his intestins due to spreading. The Drs said they got it all and gave him a choice Chemo or no Chemo.. He opted for not taking chemo. 5 years later hes dead due to the same cancer that the Drs. said they removed.
Simple facts are that Chemo does kill cancer cells. There is NO WAY in hell that if they found any kind of cancer in me that I would not be doing the follow up chemo treatments. They never get it all.
In my opinion, this article is just setting the framework for rationed care with the new Insurance reform. ( cause it damn well wasnt health care reform) These kind of " Dont test so soon, often, articles starting appearing during the debates.
As an RN, there is a lot of overkill with medical procedures and diagnositic testing. However, I think there is no such thing as finding a tumor too early. That is more idiotic than the President saying the Gulf will be cleaned up and better than before.
Finding a small tumor can mean less invasive treatment and save more lives. That means it hasn't had a chance to spread. But for the sake of argument, let's just say you can find a tumor too early. How many patients have died from finding a tumor too early versus finding a tumor too late? How many more patients were spared from having the disfiguring masectomy with resconstruction and complicating lymphedema because the tumor could be taken care of with a lumpectomy? I'd rather take my chances on finding a tumor too early thank you very much!
First it was mammograms, then prostate screening - now doctors are "finding cancer too early" - are you kidding me?
Everybody know that we are being prepped - by the Administration and his media hacks - get ready for a lot less medical care.
Tumors found too early? Are you kidding. This is definitely a trial ballon for getting us used to less care now that we are heading recklessly toward universal government run health care. Can you say death panels?!
I found the article itself to be offensive and the conclussions drawn from the "specialists" inaccurate. What is at the heart of this issue is money. From a cost benefit standpoint for insurance companies, early detection is more expensive and if they can justify the refusal to provide testing through statistics that the tests aren't "helpful" enough, they can deny requests for testings. Knowledge of the condition will never, under any circumstance, be a problem. To suggest otherwise, as this article does, is a disingenuous and servers only the interests of insurance companies trying to cut costs at the expense of lives. Early detection saves lives. If a doctor uses the early detection information improperly, than it is a failing of the doctor in performing an unneccessary procedure, not the tests. Instead, the article should be about the need for the medical community to use the results to sift out those cases that truly need surgery. Instead, the author of the article went for the sound byte to artificially make his article "controversial". Shame on you.
So "The problem with our tests is they can see too much"????
No, the problem is that doctors don't know how to interpret and prioritize the results.
I understand what they are saying in this article. However, when I was told that I had cancer, I felt like I wanted to use the nuclear option even though it was only stage 1. I wanted to make it virtually impossible for the cancer to come back. To each his own I suppose.
The medical profession and the pharmaceutical companies earn enormous profits from "treating" cancer with surgery, radiation and chemotherapy. These "treatments" result in a living hell of pain and misery for the patient but big bucks for the doctors and drug companies. In many cases, even with these "treatments", the patient still dies. However, the medical profession doesn't care about the pain, suffering or death of patients as long as the cash keeps adding up in their bank accounts.
There is a natural treatment for cancer derived from a plant material that has no side effects and stunning success with treating cancer. This treatment cannot be patented by the drug companies because it is a natural medicine. This medicine is so effective that it was made illegal in 1927.
For more information go to Google Video and watch: "Run From The Cure - The Rick Simpson Story".
Prepare to be completely astounded.
I had breast cancer HER2+ last year and fortunately it had not spread, but was throughout the right breast. I underwent mastectomy with reconstruction, chemo and Herceptin (targeted drug) for that type of cancer. I am so tired of all these "natual" cures - absolute horse@!$%# - my mother had pancreatic cancer 7 yrs ago, she died 7mths later and tried all the "natural" remedies that were being touted around. I did not have radiation and would have refused to be honest, but without the chemo and herceptin, my chances of this type of "aggressive" cancer returning was over 30% - now after treatment, it is less than your overall chance of developing cancer. As to the doctor who is saying we are treating cancer too early - what planet did this idiot come from? Cancer kills and the earlier you get it, the better chance you have of recovery. I would no more do the wait and see approach than fly to the moon and as for natural remedies, by all means try them BUT DO NOT give up on conventional treatments. Chemo is never fun, but I swam, played tennis, walked EVERY DAY and yes, I was sick but I got through it and would do it again as I want to live. Take cancer very seriously, it kills and find a good oncologist that you trust and go with it.
"I am so tired of all these "natual" (sic) cures,.." Really? Did you actually try the treatment discussed in the video I recommended? It is a treatment that can easily be used in conjunction with surgery, radiation and chemotherapy if you choose those alleged "treatments".
I am personally tired of people who criticize a better way of doing things when they have made no effort to even examine the better method let alone try them.
You are a free person in a free country. If you want doctors to hack up your body, irradiated it and feed you toxic drugs until you are a hairless, puking mess with your body racked in pain and misery for months on end only to likely die more often than survive and regain your health,.... well, that is up to you. I would rather use a natural, non-toxic treatment with no side effects and if I die anyway (as I could anyone with surgery, radiation and chemotherapy) at least I would die after months to years of additional misery and suffering.
Each to their own.
That should have read: "at least I would NOT die after months to years of additional misery and suffering."
I agree with your 100%, people sit there and judge all the natural cures for everything, instead of trying them. But instead they let the money makers of the medical field inject them with toxic chemo. I mean how much do you really have to lose by trying natural remedies first. I've never seen or heard from anyone dying of trying an all raw veggie and fruit diet for a few months. NEVER, but I have SEEN people die of Chemo and these other treatments. Ridiculous. People are losing their common sense slowly. But whatever, to each their own.
FLgirl, it's nice to hear from someone with some sense. I can illustrate your point with an example from my own experience. I met a young woman once who suffered from arthritis. She was taking four different drugs that her doctor had prescribed. I told her that many people had considerable relief from arthritis by taking the nutritional supplement glucosamine.
She told me that she had already asked her doctor about that and he had said since she was already taking four drugs, she shouldn'tt take anything else! So it was fine by her doctor that this young lady should take FOUR - count 'em - FOUR drugs but God forbid that she take a nutritional supplement, a food substance, as well! Absolutely mind-boggling!
It's not like anyone was suggesting she stop taking the drugs, just add the glucosamine to her diet to help repair the damaged tissues around her joints. To me this is like someone who eats nothing but fast food going to a doctor and complaining that they feel tired all the time, so the doctor gives them a prescription for methedrine. Crazy.
Yes. Trust I see that happen with people I know all the time. But I'm tired of saying anything to anyone anymore. If they want to be a victim of this country's richest industry, pharmaceuticals, then whatever. I do my research and find out every thing I can before I put any sort of medication in my body. There are countless cases of people getting better from natural medicine, and they definitely are way cheaper and less painful than traditional medicine. But hey, all you can do is try to help, if they dont want to hear it...then Oh well!!!! I'm glad there's more people that think like me. :)
It's all very scary and confusing. What do you beleive. It seems to change from day to day as well. I lost my mother last year to uterine cancer and I visit a cancer discussion board frequently. It's full of men and women who were diagnosed early, went thru aggressive treatment, pushed for aggressive treatment, only to have their cancer recur or spread to other organs. Hearing that you have cancer is very frightening. More so, because it is a crapshoot, not an exact science. No people are alike and no two cancers are alike. The treatment often does seem so much worse than the disease itself. Many patients want to be very aggressive from the get go, so they do surgery, chemo and radiation. I can understand their motivation. There's just so damn many unknowns with this horrible disease.
Stupid crap like not getting to tumors early is going to kill a lot of women. This article is dangerous.
I, too, wanted to be aggressive when I was diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma in 2000. I have one small tumor that was found by chance; otherwise, I was (and continue to be) asymptomatic. I did get a second opinion (the second oncologist thought it was a mis-diagnosis until he, too, took a biopsy and confirmed it) and was told by both to adopt a "watch and wait" procedure since the treatments would be far more dangerous than the cancer. As hard as that was to believe, as much as I wanted to get in and kill it off, whether it was surgery, chemo or radiation, this was the best course for my cancer at this point in my life. I was also told that in aggressively treating it might do more harm than good, that the cancer could easily return. So it is hard to make any type of generalizations on how aggressive to be or not. Certainly quality of life always has to be considered.
This article is frightening. Diagnosing early is not over diagnosing. If they want to argue that the condition is over treated, that's a different question. But saying the answer is to stick your head in the sand longer, is just plain stupid, and frightening. Especially now, when it is quite clear that there is a motive to under treat in order to save money. The conclusion that we diagnose and treat more conditions, but because the number of deaths from the condition are not reduced, it is not worth treating, is equally frightening. Death is only one adverse outcome. Knowing about a condition and deciding to delay treatment is one thing, but arguing that you are better off not knowing is just stupid.
The problem is that if they find it to early they will not be able to charge you and get all the money out of you that they can... It is all about the money and if think I am wrong think again. Being in the medical field for over thirty years I know what I am talking about.
It sounds to me like they're just setting us up for the rationing of government-run healthcare and trying to make us feel like there's some legitimate, research-based substance backing up their claims. This is a ridiculous article. I completely agree with the commenters who say that detecting early can never be a bad thing. Once it's detected, then it can be the individual's choice as to how aggressively to treat it. Anything else just doesn't make sense. This article is simply ridiculous.
Erin, I agree entirely. All these changes about early detection started after the so-called health bill passed. You don't fool around with cancer, you treat it asap. The gov't is worried about paying out all these medical bills. Wanna bet if we start following the "advice" about cancer(s), the death rate goes through the roof.
The problem is not they are finding things too early; the problem is that they don't yet know what to do when they find these early signs of cancers. If they knew which were really going to become life-threatening, they would go after those as soon as possible.
Someone should be managing the public message better. It doesn't do the public any good if they hear something that sounds like, "don't worry too much about finding cancer early" and, "chances are, men, we'll make you incontinent and impotent as an overkill measure." This is just irresponsible.
icstars-1 -- Very logical post! Once again, too much "maybe this, maybe that" information. The media is also looking for ways to keep their business surviving.
Soon it may not be a matter of if one wishes to wait it will be a cost saving measure to wait. One cant help but notice the tone of the reporting is changing, last year it was about lack of treatment now its about over treatment. I think the propaganda machine is spewing or spinning a justification for rationing benefits. When these procedures are delayed will their be tort reform to protect providers from the inevitable law suits? Or will the thinkers in Washington allow the private providers to go bankrupt protecting themselves.
Diagnosing early is a good thing. No doubt about that. But, what you do after that diagnosis should be a careful, well-thought out process, not a rush job influenced by the first doctor you see. And, it does depend on the type of cancer. My husband was 49 yrs. old when he was subjected to 2 prostate biopsies because his PSA was slightly elevated. The 2nd biopsy found barely detectable cancer. His urologist said he should consider addressing the situation as quickly as possible and he had a prostatectomy. We both wish he had waited at least 5 more years with continued screening. Most prostate cancers are slow-developing, and in all likelihood he could have waited 10 years. His doctor was a surgeon. He recommended surgery. Can't emphasize enough getting more than one opinion when it comes to your life and the quality of your life.
"Some tumors are being found too early due to screenings, specialists say"
Just the basic ObamaCare doctrine. Wait, don't treat, and either the patient gets better or dies. Saves a bunch of money by preserving only those healthy by happen chance. Cuts and broken fingers can be treated cheaply. This is why those from the Canadian medical utopia, that can afford it, cross into the US when they have something serious.
Insurance Companies set the treatment level for these early cancer detections and treatment not Obama. The Health care bill is not in effect and will not go into effect for a little while. That is why some insurance companies drop a patient when he/she is diagnosed with cancer so as not to treat it.
Let’s talk about Prostate Cancer.
In many cases, a PSA test will alert you to a cancer that is so slow growing that you won’t live long enough to have it ever be a threat. I.E. natural causes will kill you 1st.
Also, PSAs will show elevated levels for BPH (Benign prostatic hyperplasia) which is a benign condition.
So if you have no genetic predisposition to prostate cancer, undergoing an automatic prostatectomy without an evaluation of the type & stage of prostate cancer involved is not what I would/will choose.
As a 50 year old male, I may indeed have to make that decision for myself.
PamAnn’s comments are well taken. A surgeon unfortunately is often too quick to “cut 1st and ask questions later”
When the downside to a prostatectomy often includes impotence & incontinence, I am here to say that choice will be mine.
Finally, as much as I detest Obamacare, I agree with the reevaluation of some of our policies. I believe that the apportionment of our health care dollars is skewed towards the vain at the expense of the efficacious. Unfortunately a government solution is usually worse than the original problem.
Regards,
Scott
The real truth is that nothing will save lives. The best of medicine only prolongs life, and the very best does it while also extending quality of life. So it would be nice to be realistic, instead of associating medicine with affordable, never-ending miracles.
As to causes, deaths are caused by accidents or natural causes. Getting run over by a car is an accident. Cancer is a natural cause. So the re-evaluation starts at home. Our national health care bill is driven by our expectations, which cannot be fullfilled at any cost. We cannot buy immortality.
I am encouraged by the responses to this article. Early diagnosis saves lives, period. And any "study" or anything from the government to the contrary surely has a financial motivation. First, get a good doctor, and listen to him/her. I was diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2006, after my PSA tripled over a one-year period. A subsequent biopsy found cancer at Gleason level 7. I did the research to find an outstanding specialist in the field, took 7 months to review options, then had a radical removal the the prostate and surrounding tissues, but saving the nerve bundles. My eyes were wide open to the possible side effects (low odds). I chose life, I chose to remove the cancer from my body. I've never felt better, and everything works just fine, thank you. And I'm in the majority, most people survive and live well. Those advocating "watchful waiting" can play Russian Roulette with their lives...I'm happy with my decision, and hope more people think carefully before making a decision like this.
I don't know about too early/my Dr found a shadow on a scan and instead of putting me through all the usual 1st to last test he started at the top of the chain so to speak/turned out to be Ovarian Cancer and had he tested the usual way I probably would have been dead today. As it was It was in the earliest possible stage and I was able to get by with removal and some radiation only.
Even with Insurance it cost me a bundle but I am alive and well and grateful for everyday.
Never trust news you find online!! This was most likely underwritten by some Health Insurance Company or some large Self Insured Employer. Face it folks, when we seek treatment it costs them money - and they would prefer larger profit margins, bonuses and EPS than paying claims!!
The only person you can trust with your health is yourself. If you ever feel your doctor isnt taking you seriously - change doctors!! they are a dime a dozen, and definitely need to be reminded that we the consumers are their customers and we do have a choice!! never settle for poor explanations or treatment - only you really know your body and what is best!!
I work in long-term care (RN) and I can definitely say some of our frail elderly are way over-tested and treated. When someone has dementia or is 95-years-old and already has no quality of life, the emphasis should be on comfort, not cure. I have seen too many of these folks have mammograms, colonoscopies, PSAs, etc. etc. We have to start thinking about what all this aggressive care is costing all of us, and what is the benefit. It's one thing if an individual can be treated for cancer and go on to live a long productive life. But as we (individually and as a nation) get older, there is just no way Medicare/Medicaid/private insurance can afford to pay for increasingly aggressive care for just about every illness you can imagine. At some point we really do have to let nature take its course.
Ah, so the family of the dementia patient had nothing to do with this? Doctors took a person who cannot argue and did all the tests they could think of? Or was the family worried for their loved one?
What about non-dementia patients? If they want the tests and treatment, should we tell them no? They do not have a high enough quality of life to deserve them?
We can afford to pay for all of this. Stop giving anything free to people who are able to work for themselves.
One of the things I have noticed about families of long-term care patients is that denial runs deep. Just the fact that an individual is at the point that they NEED nursing home care is an indicator of decline in quality of life. I know the brochures look and sound nice and homey, but the fact is it is a place most people don't want to go.
And the cost of care is generally higher for those with the worst quality of life (because they require more care). As for tests, so many families just don't really know what to do except "go with the flow". I think it is especially true for those who are not paying out of pocket. A lot of people don't realize it really is OK to let Grandma stop having mammograms! Unfortunately, facilities often have protocols requiring certain lab tests if a resident is taking a specific drug (PT/INR for those on Coumadin, for example).
Even if we could afford the most aggressive care for everyone (regardless of current status or probable outcome)--is this how we as a nation really want to spend our money???
I agree with this article. There has been a lot of research on cancer lately and they are saying that one in three people will at some point in their lives will have some cancer cells in their bodies, and that their immune systems will most likely kill them off before they are even found on these tests. To me that says a lot. If these tests are making people frantic and making them go for chemo and these invasive treatments, at such an early stage, when it was probably growing at such a slow pace that they probably were going to die before even having any symptoms, then they're probably right for warning people about it. I think this may or may not have something to do with the health reform, but also, doctors are in the business of making money, and if I get this right, they are making lots and lots of money from people with early stages of cancer that might not need treatment yet. I think everyone should do what is right for them, but personally I know that more and more people are dying from this disease every day, more than ever. The more technology they have the more people die. I have done a lot of reading on cancer, and from what I see, a lot of these people do not die from the disease itself, they die because they can't make it through the treatment. So the way I see it, people should do what is best for them. Do your research and always get a second opinion, and get treatment as you see fit, or don't and keep going to get checked frequently to see how fast the cancer is spreading. But before doing anything drastic, research what cancer is and do what's best for your own body, regardless of what the health reform or any doctor tells you. I personally know people that have died from cancer, and before they were diagnosed, they were totally fine, no symptoms, nothing. As soon as they started "treatment", their health deteriorated in such a way, that I dont wish for my worse enemy. Yea some people might make it, but a lot of them that make it through such invasive treatment have health problems for the rest of their lifes as a result of chemo. RESEARCH and learn about this disease and the causes before judging the writer of this article.
My dad has bladder cancer which spread to the prostate... he's wealthy enough to afford treatment though; I don't know it's necessary to prevent death (he's about 60). For the record, he smoked tobacco ocassionally & drinks/drank probably four glasses of wine per day (too much) &, unethically, eats animal products. Maybe it's trolling to say the US should have tax-funded healthcare for all, but I typed it anyway.
I know a lady who was under 40 and diagnosed with stage zero breast cancer. She had a double mastectomy coupled with both radiation and chemo. Seems a little radical for what the doctors described to her as a "spattering" of pre-cancer cells.
And now thanks to this great technology we have she has no breasts, or maybe implants, will probably have side effects for the rest of her life thanks to the chemo, and for what? I'm sure if she had stage 0 cancer, she probably had no symptoms and had the test not told her she had "stage 0" cancer, she would have a normal life, and died at an old age with both of her breasts. Ridiculous. That is way to radical, and she just paid for some doctor's vacation by getting all that crap done. I dont know how they sleep at night!
My ob/gyn of 20 years instilled fear of ovarian cancer to get my "consent" to remove my uterus and both ovaries after discovering a cystadenoma on one ovary. Despite a benign frozen section, he and Graduate Medical Education students proceeded to remove the rest of my organs. Even more shocking is that he failed to follow the recommendation of the oncologist to whom he referred me to only remove the one ovary. I can only suspect greed, power and teaching hospital quotas.
Sadly, it is not uncommon for ob/gyns to remove female organs for benign conditions and in many cases if the uterus or an ovary has problems, they remove all the female sex organs (castrat***). Of the 600,000+ hysterectomies every year, 75% also involve removal of healthy ovaries, endocrine glands that produce essential hormones throughout life. The uterus and ovaries work together; the removal of any one of them wreaks havoc on a woman's health. Over 90% of hysterectomies are unwarranted. Most female conditions can be treated while still preserving the organs; however, women aren't told about other options. And, oftentimes, no treatment is needed as the condition will resolve on its own. Hysterectomy is a $17B annual industry for doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies. They will not give up this revenue stream without a fight! Where is the outrage? If male organs were being removed, there would be public outcry.
Go to www.hersfoundation.com to learn the truth about hysterectomy and ovary removal. Read the Adverse Effects Data, view the Female Anatomy DVD, read the Blog of women's stories, and Take Action (sign the petition) to require informed consent for this surgery.
Sounds like just more double talk from people who have no idea what they are talking about. My doctors are telling me that the tumors which caused months of pain were too small to be found on scans or with blood work. So where is the early detection? Laryngectomy, glossectomy and radical neck dissections failed to find or remove tumors that were the source of my problem. I'm not sure any of them know what treatment is. Doctors all have a line of bull a mile long and cannot answer simple questions.