This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Why is breast cancer detection technology so primitive?
While Komen v. Planned Parenthood has us all fired up about access to breast cancer screening let's talk about the pathetic state of the actual screening technology. Why is that in the 50 years that mammography has been in use there's been no progress in improving the experience of having a mammogram and relatively little progress in improving the accuracy of detection? Perhaps more importantly, why is it that new and better technologies are ignored or left underfunded?
Topics:
cancer planned parenthood womens health
Kathy Merrell
Kathy Merrell
Michael Hennigan 100+
I refute the cynical claims of gender bias made below. Almost half of physicians are now women, and the people I know in this area are good, passionate, intelligent people agressively searching for answers on multiple fronts.
First "prevention" - this term is usually misused to mean early detection. But in that area agressive search for the genetic markers is rapidly ongoing - still expensive but the cost is dropping as technology improves and volume goes up to cover the fixed cost such as a gene sequencing analyzer costing > 500K each. These advances are made more difficult by the fact that there is not one, but multiple genetic mutations shown to lead to development. Additional research on ways to optimize the immune system ranging from vitamins such as Vit d, effects of glucose control (Prediabetes & Diabetes) and many others are ongoing.
Detection technology has also advanced remarkably in the last 10 years, with digital mammography, and MRI as well as much better ultrasound (all with better computers and software as the foundation) One major limitation for premenopausal women, is that there is not much difference in tissue density between some tumors and the surrounding tissue - and just like photography - medical imaging all depends on contrast - so if no contrast, then no tumor seen. Ultrasound can show masses in premenopausal, as can MRI but on a public health level, the cost per additional diagnosis gets exponentially higher the younger and lower risk a lady is. One area of research is using monoclonal antibodies (MCA) to label tumor cells with a marker that is then seen on imaging. But with variation in tumors, again there are multiple MCA needed with increaed cost and lower sensitivity.
Gary Weisgerber
Just a thought: I wonder if a prediliction to cancer is possibly to be found in our DNA? If that were the case, perhaps DNA might be altered early in life as a preventative? Admittedly, I'm no scientist...perhaps this thought is misinformed.
Carolyn Dyck-Maynard
Times have changed...but we are still behind in comparison to research that has been done on female vs. male diseases.
Gisela McKay 30+
Then again, I know several women whose breast cancer was caught by ultrasound, not mammography - one of whom had to override her own doctor and check the "ultrasound" box herself when she was getting tested because he thought she was being a hypochondriac when she said she knew something was wrong.
Richard Krooman 50+
It is just a cost vs value thing. Ofcourse for the women getting it and being left undetected this is a horrible experience (actually when it's found it's also not a happy occasion I assure you). But we also can't charge everyone 10k$ each year to test whether they have breast cancer or not.
You could argue that there should be a more accurate test that is more cost-efficient. That would make a large impact.
But I actually doubt if that is possible. Because everything that works with radiation can be pretty lethal by itself and strong magnetism / electronical devices just cost a lot to build.