Breast scan. No medical advice

Dill

Torry_Quine wrote: »

That sounds more likely.

I agree.

4% given cancer treatment, 1% of which was necessary 3% unnecessary.

Alice_Walker

Dill wrote: »

I agree.

4% given cancer treatment, 1% of which was necessary 3% unnecessary.

No, only the person with cancer will have treatment. The others will be given the all clear after investigation.

Pollycat

Dill wrote: »

I agree.

4% given cancer treatment, 1% of which was necessary 3% unnecessary.

Well, if I had a mammogram & was told that I needed treatment for cancer, that would be the time to quiz the doctors about the results.

Dill

have you ever tried 'quizzing doctors'..?

theoretica

Alice_Walker wrote: »

No, only the person with cancer will have treatment.

Of 15 people with cancer and given treatment about 4 will have been unnecessary. Some cancers never go on to cause trouble, they don't spread and grow really slowly. Current medical practice isn't yet confident at spotting them and realising they can be left alone, so they are all treated.

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/type/breast-cancer/about/screening/who-is-screened-for-breast-cancer#balance

Paley

I rarely feel compelled to reply on these forums but I'm coming up to that age and have the same indecision.
I've just read a very interesting article on New York Times website, titled 'Our Feel-Good War on Breast Cancer' written by a breast cancer survivor, thought provoking stuff indeed.

missbiggles1

Dill wrote: »

I knew there was a risk of traumatic and unnecessary treatment but I didn't realise it was 3 out of 4.

75% of women subjected to surgery, chemo and radiation therapy (and all the possible side effects) as a result of these mammograms should never have been treated? :eek:

OP have you been tested for the BRCA1/BRCA2 genes? If not it might be worth asking?

That's terrible misinformation to be giving out!:eek:

Upsidedown_Bear

Paley wrote: »

I rarely feel compelled to reply on these forums but I'm coming up to that age and have the same indecision.
I've just read a very interesting article on New York Times website, titled 'Our Feel-Good War on Breast Cancer' written by a breast cancer survivor, thought provoking stuff indeed.

The article is here if anyone wants to read it.

Thanks for sharing

oldandhappy

Dill wrote: »

I agree.

4% given cancer treatment, 1% of which was necessary 3% unnecessary.

how can you quote such crap figures and feel like you know what your talking about...you need to go back to the drawing board and find the real facts out about such a serious illness which affects so many people ...you really need to be more responsible for your postings.

suki1964

Alice_Walker wrote: »

No, only the person with cancer will have treatment. The others will be given the all clear after investigation.

This isn't what I'm reading.

I'm reading that 3 out of 4 given cancer treatment because they have cancer are being treated unnessecary as their particular breast cancer is not life threatening


My mum has been living with bladder cancer the past 6 years. The only "treatment " she gets is a wee look every year and a scrape. This is after they confuesed her tb scarring as lung cancer and had her booked in for her lung to be removed !!! She had to fight tooth and nail for further tests to prove she never ever had lung cancer. If she hadn't I'm pretty sure mum wouldn't be sat here today driving me insane


This is what scares me. You get told cancer and it's like omg, treat me now, but is treatment always correct, esp when some cancers are not life threatening, yet the treatments can be ?


Oh I'd love to make an appointment to chat with my GP. But the wait list is up to 3 months unless it's urgent and then you get 7 mins with a locum who you have never seen before and won't see again


Hence my bringing it up here, to get different perspectives, experiences and views. It all helps