Thursday, April 13, 2017


With all possible respect, must say I'm disappointed in the US News "False Negatives, False Positives" article. today.

This positive/negative issue has been discussed by leaders in the field.  US News could have called on more of them instead of starting by quoting Komen.

Then, only one doctor from a college health center (UF).   Dr. Shah's list for next steps from bad mammo “after an abnormal mammogram, the next step is a sonogram, a physical exam and eventually they may need an excisional biopsy” does not reflect practice everywhere.

Instead of ultrasound (the test that produces a  sonogram,) OR excisional biopsy, I was  persuaded to have a

stereotactic needle biopsy.  It uses image guidance
 to tell the "needle" where to take a small sample.

 The tech providing the images to the doctor had recently worked to teach others to use the image technology.  I wasn't delighted by it, but it was better than traditional "knife" biopsy.  It did detect a cancer, and made me feel okay to meet the cancer surgeon.  

 The was one place quoted as having changed
 their recommendations for screening.   I don't know a lot about them, I admit.

The main benefit I see from the article is:  It made me wonder why no other hospitals are included.  Are they all pushing screening?  Or are more hospitals than realized in controversy on what to do after DCIS diagnosis.  If anything.

As one who had surgery, radiation, and now tamoxifen for DCIS,  I'm still looking up what hospitals do what.  My surgeon said I could do nothing if I chose!  At that time, as far as I knew, that was a radical stand.  He then recommended I meet a certain radiation oncologist who, I feel, pushed me (or downright pressured me) into radiation.  I had, however seen some figures from one hospital that later led me to think the radiation might be good, especially after I saw my path report from surgery.
(Have I told you that story way too many times?)

Would be interested in your feedback if you read the US News article.

I wish you health.

No comments: