«--Previous Post | Blog Index | Next Post--»
Lower Breast Cancer Rates May Not Mean Less Cancer
According to a report released today by the CDC, fully 1.1 million fewer women aged 40 and over had mammograms last year than in 2000. This decline might explain, in part, the recent drop in breast cancer rates in the U.S., meaning rates might not actually be going down. Fewer diagnoses does not mean fewer cases, just fewer known cases. So, while we have seen detection rates decrease, deaths from breast cancer could increase, the report says.
The reason for the drop is unclear but the CDC researchers point to a couple of disturbing trends that move beyond the taking-it-for-granted explanation:
"One study has indicated that breast-imaging facilities face challenges such as shortages of key personnel, malpractice concerns and financial constraints."
"Because the number of U.S. women aged more than 40 years increased by more than 24 million during 1990 to 2000, the number of available facilities and trained breast specialists might not be sufficient to meet the needs of the population, whose overall median age continues to increase."
This feels wrong. Wrong, not in the incorrect sense, but wrong in the how can there not-be-enough-facilities-for-such-basic-needs sense. And let's get some more "breast specialists" trained, this is a must people.
The report did not look at mammography rates by age, geographic region or socioeconomic status though the researchers say they do plan on examining whether the decrease in mammography rates is concentrated among certain groups, such as the poor and uninsured.Each year, more than 200,000 women in the U.S. are diagnosed with breast cancer and about 40,000 die from the disease. According to the report, screening might reduce breast cancer mortality by 20% to 35% among women ages 50 to 69 and by 20% among women ages 40 to 49.
-- Elizabeth Gettelman
Comments
Living in area of the country with an unusually high rate of cancer that is a point that is so painfully obvious. Over thirty years ago M.D. Anderson Cancer Research in Houston pointed out that we had a huge problem just on the number of patients being sent to Houston from this area for treatment. I am a survivor of breast cancer and fortunately cancer free now for 8 years,on the street I live on there 15 breast cancer survivors , one leukemia survivor, and probably a few a I may not know about. That is pretty high for a town of 650. The presidents smugness in relation to his announcement made me extremely angry. He has no idea what is out here in the real world considering his numbers are 2 years old.
ARCHIVE
RECENT COMMENTS
Are Fluorescents Really Better? (10)
Cat Lady wrote:
Carolyn, I use tin foil hats to counter the beams. It real...
[more]
How the Bailout Benefits the Environment (1)
Phil wrote:
Nikki: I think you need to get your facts straight: The ...
[more]
Penguins Threatened in Antarctic, Dying in South America (3)
Student wrote:
Cleo said "If you disregard the penguin species, you disre...
[more]
Hack-A-Vote (2)
R.Stolle wrote:
While I agree with Fair Trade that Diebold probably has a ...
[more]
Asheville, NC is Out of Gas (70)
Kaos Melody wrote:
This is no one person's fault. although I have never voted...
[more]
Economy Screws Climate (5)
Lars the Viking wrote:
In 1991, Norway became one of the first countries in the w...
[more]
Study: Chocolate and Alcohol Are Bad for Your Planet (15)
Dr. Webster wrote:
Nutz said "eco-shite." The word "shxxx" is one of the for...
[more]
Lead Shot Kills Long After The Bullet Stops (4)
bob mcdonnald wrote:
I do agree with youre statistics and your concern for all ...
[more]
Study: Toxic PBDEs Are 10 Times Higher in California (5)
Bryson wrote:
WA banned PBDE's a few years ago; we were the first govern...
[more]
Baby Polar Bear Cub, "Cute Knut," Wanted Dead by Activists (32)
savannah wrote:
Ok, first of all, i do not even know how anybody, even a c...
[more]
Movable Type 3.33


Posted by: Jeanie on 02/06/07 at 1:52 PM Respond