-VISIT OUR OTHER FORUMS- OB-GYN-L Ultrasound Ultrasound History Fibroid Forum Physicians-in-Training Tech Talk OBSTET-L (portuguese) OBGIN-L (spanish) Nursing

Re: Mammography's False Promise? From: art fougner, md (evsono@pipeline.com) Thu Jan 24 18:48:22 2002 Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ] Next message: ND84MD@aol.com: "Re: Mammography's False Promise?" Previous message: zbnewton: "Re: Mammography's False Promise?" stay tuned - for plaintiff's attorneys have a lot riding on a test with a sensitivity of 85% in a disease process afflicting 1/9 women ( LI NY stats) My own personal bias - hey, i call it as i see it - is that the tumor biology - not the size nor stage at diagnosis ultimately determines outcome. Many small tumors are already distantly spread at the time of first radiographic appearance. Perhaps early detection saves lives should be amended to early detection saves breasts. just my opinion - i could be wrong. art At Thu, 24 Jan 2002, zbnewton wrote: > >Art- > >Your buy of the current whizzing of mammography has been reenforced by >multiple posts: ebm vs underlying bias for beneficence. > >The idea that the course of disease is defined by the inherent biology as a >function independent of anatomical tumor size is the consideration. This >addresses the dynamics of tumor power and host power. > >Somewhere apart from conceptual projection rests the smell test and >commonsense. Imaging for ductal carcinoma, including capture of abnormal >microcalcification clusters, results in earlier intervention and saved lies >in my belief from the slurry of data and from unexamined sense of ancedotal >practice experience. All the king's men will not change outcomes in so many >of the few with lobular carcinoma or BRCA ER/PR - tumors. > >Point is that the vast majority of breast cancer victims are of ductal >variety, wherein the earlier the diagnosis, the greater the chance for cure. >Imaging is crucial to that earlier diagnosis, provided that there be serial >screening with good techs and good radiologists with good equipment and a >good follow-up system for enhanced imaging and tissue examination in >indeterminate cases. > >I reject the notion that breast screening by modern breast imaging does not >substantially reduce risk of death from the disease. On the contrary, I >believe that enhanced techniques, using MRI for diagnostic concerns (as >opposed to screening), will gain ground against the horror of failed >diagnosis of ewaly lobular carcinoma. > >To discard screening mammography with the 40 and above annual standard is a >rocket ride into recidivism. > >I could be wrong, not said in gest. > >Zach Newton >Z. B.Newton, III, M.D. >Atlanta/Gyn -- art fougner, md ich bin ein New Yorker Next message: ND84MD@aol.com: "Re: Mammography's False Promise?" Previous message: zbnewton: "Re: Mammography's False Promise?"

Return to

Mail a New Message to the Forum: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net Forum Administrator: geffrey.klein@obgyn.net Report Technical Problems: webmaster@obgyn.net Last Updated: Wed Dec 2 04:52:40 2009

The American Medical Association is no longer designating CME hours for AMA Category II CME credit. However, physicians themselves may self designate learning activities as Category II CME credit hours if they feel it is of sufficient educational merit and meets the formal definitions of continuing medical education. OBGYN.net believes these interaction in this forum meets these criteria. For further information see the AMA web site.