SERVING MINNEAPOLIS / ST. PAUL / MINNESOTA

MinnPost.com Job Listing of the Day!
MinnPost.com Job Listing of the Day!

Browse
Minnesota Jobs
Direct from Company Websites!

Unadvertised,
Current,
Highest-quality

Start Searching Now!

 





 

SECOND OPINION

  • Switch to Small Text Size
  • Switch to Medium Text Size
  • Switch to Large Text Size
Recommend to a friend Print Submit a Comment

    American Cancer Society: Benefits of some cancer screenings have been exaggerated

    By Susan Perry | Published Wed, Oct 21 2009 10:10 am

    The American Cancer Society, which has long been a staunch defender of most cancer screening, is now saying that the benefits of detecting many cancers, especially breast and prostate, have been overstated.
    It is quietly working on a message, to put on its Web site early next year, to emphasize that screening for breast and prostate cancer and certain other cancers can come with a real risk of overtreating many small cancers while missing cancers that are deadly.
    “We don’t want people to panic,” said Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical officer of the cancer society. “But I’m admitting that American medicine has overpromised when it comes to screening. The advantages to screening have been exaggerated.”

    This new action is based, in part, on an analysis published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Writes Gina Kolata in the Times:

    The new analysis — by Dr. Laura Esserman, a professor of surgery and radiology at the University of California, San Francisco, and director of the Carol Frank Buck Breast Care Center there, and Dr. Ian Thompson, professor and chairman of the department of urology at The University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio — finds that prostate cancer screening and breast cancer screening are not so different.
    Both have a problem that runs counter to everything people have been told about cancer: They are finding cancers that do not need to be found because they would never spread and kill or even be noticed if left alone. That has led to a huge increase in cancer diagnoses because, without screening, those innocuous cancers would go undetected.
    At the same time, both screening tests are not making much of a dent in the number of cancers that are deadly. That may be because many lethal breast cancers grow so fast they spring up between mammograms. And the deadly prostate ones have already spread at the time of cancer screening. The dilemma for breast and prostate screening is that it is not usually clear which tumors need aggressive treatment and which can be left alone. And one reason that is not clear, some say, is that studying it has not been much of a priority.
    “The issue here is, as we look at cancer medicine over the last 35 or 40 years, we have always worked to treat cancer or to find cancer early,” Dr. Brawley said. “And we never sat back and actually thought, ‘Are we treating the cancers that need to be treated?’ ”

    A sea change -- but one that shouldn't be all that unexpected for people who've been reading the scientific literature.

    Like what you just read? Support high-quality journalism in Minnesota by becoming a member of MinnPost.

    Advertisement:

    1 Comments: Hide/Show Comments

    1 Comment: Hide/Show Comment

    0 Comments:

    E-mail address

    Password

     

    Forgot Password? | Register to Comment

    MinnPost does not permit the use of foul language, personal attacks or the use of language that may be libelous or interpreted as inciting hate or sexual harassment. User comments are reviewed by moderators to ensure that comments meet these standards and adhere to MinnPost's terms of use and privacy policy.

    We intend for this area to be used by our readers as a place for civil, thought-provoking and high-quality public discussion. In order to achieve this, MinnPost requires that all commenters register and post comments with their actual names and place of residence. Register here to comment.


    Illustration by Hugh Bennewitz


    minnpost.com/healthblog



    In "Second Opinion" Susan Perry will coordinate coverage to help MinnPost readers make their way through the thicket of health happenings, trends, studies and research. Perry has written several health-related books, and her articles have appeared in a wide variety of publications, including Minnesota Monthly, The History Channel Magazine and Woman's Day. She is a former writer/editor for Time-Life Books and a former editor of Nutrition Action Healthletter, published by the Center for Science in the Public Interest. Perry can be reached at sperry [at] minnpost [dot] com.

    Recent Second Opinion posts