mLive
SWARTZ CREEK, Michigan — Three times was the charm for Swartz Creek breast cancer survivor Carla Lazar.
Lazar, 42, has had three mammograms since age 38, each ordered by her primary care physician as a routine part of her preventive health care program.
Lazar, 42, has had three mammograms since age 38, each ordered by her primary care physician as a routine part of her preventive health care program.
She’ll never forget the third, done Dec. 22 of 2008 at the age of 41.
It’s the one that saved her life.
It’s also a mammogram she never would’ve had, under controversial new mammography guidelines from the United States Preventive Services Task Force.
The new federal guidelines — which no longer recommend routine screening for women ages 40-49 unless they are genetically predisposed to breast cancer, and once every two years rather than annually for women ages 50-74 — have caused an uproar within the medical and patient advocacy communities since being released on Nov. 16.
Diagnosed with stage one breast cancer, Lazar underwent lumpectomy surgery to remove the tumor, then three months of chemotherapy followed by seven weeks of radiation.
She credits her medical team and the support of friends and family for her survival — but none of that would’ve been possible without the test that detected the disease, she said.
“My prognosis now is good, God willing. Luckily for me that’s how it played out because I had no symptoms, no risk factors. If my doctor wasn’t diligent in ordering these tests, this might’ve been a very different conversation,” said Lazar.
“If these new guidelines were already in place, I wouldn’t even get my first mammogram until I turn 50. By then, we probably wouldn’t even be having this conversation.”
That’s exactly what has alarmed physicians like radiologist Dr. Linda Lawrence Murphy, director of imaging for McLaren Regional Medical Center and McLaren Imaging Center.
“We are diagnosing women younger and younger all the time. We’ve gotten so much better at detecting breast cancer at a smaller stage when it is curable. So many are women under age 50. This is a huge step backwards in early detection,” said Lawrence Murphy. “I feel like we are going back to the dark ages in women’s health care.”
Supporters of the Task Force report have said the findings simply indicate not enough lives of younger women are being saved to justify the expense, stress and risk of unnecessary mammography.
Lazar finds that notion disturbing.
“I don’t know if this is about insurance companies not wanting to pay for all these tests but if they save one life, it’s worth it. It’s my life. It may be your own,” said Lazar. “I can understand not putting women through biopsies and additional testing that end up not being anything, but what if it was something like in my case? I’m so grateful we have a system in place now that is ready to treat this right at the offset.”
Lazar was also bothered that the report advised against teaching women to do breast self-exams.
“I can’t imagine how it could hurt to be proactive with our own bodies. It’s got to be a good thing anytime a woman is in tune with her own body enough to recognize a change,” said Lazar.
Lawrence Murphy said the study had a very big, basic flaw: it was based on results from an older style of film screen mammography that is rapidly being replaced by more accurate digital screening.
“Probably close to 80 percent of women are getting digitals now, which is far superior in detecting cancer in women under age 50, those with dense breasts and those who are peri-menopausal,” said Lawrence Murphy.
Lawrence Murphy said the report distorted the reality of unnecessary biopsies too.
“It’s true mammograms aren’t perfect and we do some biospies that are benign. But these are not major surgeries in the hospital. Most are done using a simple needle under local anestheisa. The patient has a bandaid when she leaves,” said Lawrence Murphy.
Meanwhile, groups like the American Cancer Society, Black Women’s Health Imperative and American Society of Breast Surgeons continue to line up in opposition to the guidelines, which some fear could eventually eliminate mammography coverage as a prevention service and negatively impact Michigan women's health.
“Nobody involved with this report is looking at what we are saving on the other end by curing these women earlier, before it requires more expensive surgery and could’ve spread to other organs,” said Lawrence Murphy. “It’s like telling someone don’t look both ways before you cross the street because it causes anxiety and hasn’t been shown to save lives. It’s just ridiculous.”
It’s the one that saved her life.
It’s also a mammogram she never would’ve had, under controversial new mammography guidelines from the United States Preventive Services Task Force.
The new federal guidelines — which no longer recommend routine screening for women ages 40-49 unless they are genetically predisposed to breast cancer, and once every two years rather than annually for women ages 50-74 — have caused an uproar within the medical and patient advocacy communities since being released on Nov. 16.
Diagnosed with stage one breast cancer, Lazar underwent lumpectomy surgery to remove the tumor, then three months of chemotherapy followed by seven weeks of radiation.
She credits her medical team and the support of friends and family for her survival — but none of that would’ve been possible without the test that detected the disease, she said.
“My prognosis now is good, God willing. Luckily for me that’s how it played out because I had no symptoms, no risk factors. If my doctor wasn’t diligent in ordering these tests, this might’ve been a very different conversation,” said Lazar.
“If these new guidelines were already in place, I wouldn’t even get my first mammogram until I turn 50. By then, we probably wouldn’t even be having this conversation.”
That’s exactly what has alarmed physicians like radiologist Dr. Linda Lawrence Murphy, director of imaging for McLaren Regional Medical Center and McLaren Imaging Center.
“We are diagnosing women younger and younger all the time. We’ve gotten so much better at detecting breast cancer at a smaller stage when it is curable. So many are women under age 50. This is a huge step backwards in early detection,” said Lawrence Murphy. “I feel like we are going back to the dark ages in women’s health care.”
Supporters of the Task Force report have said the findings simply indicate not enough lives of younger women are being saved to justify the expense, stress and risk of unnecessary mammography.
Lazar finds that notion disturbing.
“I don’t know if this is about insurance companies not wanting to pay for all these tests but if they save one life, it’s worth it. It’s my life. It may be your own,” said Lazar. “I can understand not putting women through biopsies and additional testing that end up not being anything, but what if it was something like in my case? I’m so grateful we have a system in place now that is ready to treat this right at the offset.”
Lazar was also bothered that the report advised against teaching women to do breast self-exams.
“I can’t imagine how it could hurt to be proactive with our own bodies. It’s got to be a good thing anytime a woman is in tune with her own body enough to recognize a change,” said Lazar.
Lawrence Murphy said the study had a very big, basic flaw: it was based on results from an older style of film screen mammography that is rapidly being replaced by more accurate digital screening.
“Probably close to 80 percent of women are getting digitals now, which is far superior in detecting cancer in women under age 50, those with dense breasts and those who are peri-menopausal,” said Lawrence Murphy.
Lawrence Murphy said the report distorted the reality of unnecessary biopsies too.
“It’s true mammograms aren’t perfect and we do some biospies that are benign. But these are not major surgeries in the hospital. Most are done using a simple needle under local anestheisa. The patient has a bandaid when she leaves,” said Lawrence Murphy.
Meanwhile, groups like the American Cancer Society, Black Women’s Health Imperative and American Society of Breast Surgeons continue to line up in opposition to the guidelines, which some fear could eventually eliminate mammography coverage as a prevention service and negatively impact Michigan women's health.
“Nobody involved with this report is looking at what we are saving on the other end by curing these women earlier, before it requires more expensive surgery and could’ve spread to other organs,” said Lawrence Murphy. “It’s like telling someone don’t look both ways before you cross the street because it causes anxiety and hasn’t been shown to save lives. It’s just ridiculous.”
No comments:
Post a Comment