Mass Screening

[bluemonday]

Local Doctors Opinion

Sorry but I think it's a good idea.

For example, he says it's far more effective to focus on women over the age of 50 when it comes to checking for breast cancer:

 

Yes but it's more devastating for younger women and they ( and their young children ) have more to lose.

Obviously it boils down to money and I'd agree

it being very resource-intensive.

But surely it shouldn't be written off and is a good idea?

Opinions?

[Slim]

Local Doctors Opinion

Sorry but I think it's a good idea.

For example, he says it's far more effective to focus on women over the age of 50 when it comes to checking for breast cancer:

 

Yes but it's more devastating for younger women and they ( and their young children ) have more to lose.

Obviously it boils down to money and I'd agree

it being very resource-intensive.

But surely it shouldn't be written off and is a good idea?

Opinions?

 

I would have thought early detection in even a few cases would save enough money in treatment to make this cost effective. I'm not an expert though.

[sarahc]

Taking mammograms as an example of the early screening, here's why there's little point in doing it too early:

 

Breakthrough link

 

 

The reasons why the NHS Breast Screening Programme starts at the age of 50, are:

 

Most breast cancers occur in postmenopausal women (over the age of 50).

 

 

The breast tissue of younger (premenopausal) women is denser - making it harder to get a clear picture of the breast.

 

 

If you're considered high risk you can get ultrasounds instead. (in theory at least)

[triskelion]

Its not just about money though: You have to consider the restraints on the time of doctors and other staff. You can't just hire more.

 

Surely this would have to be compulsory to be effective anyway? I have deep moral reservation about forced public health measures, unless they are to prevent an epidemic or something, which is clearly not the case here.

[Moghrey Mie]

Local Doctors Opinion

Sorry but I think it's a good idea.

For example, he says it's far more effective to focus on women over the age of 50 when it comes to checking for breast cancer:

 

Yes but it's more devastating for younger women and they ( and their young children ) have more to lose.

Obviously it boils down to money and I'd agree

it being very resource-intensive.

But surely it shouldn't be written off and is a good idea?

Opinions?

 

 

I shouldn't hold your breath waiting for this to happen on the IOM.

They can't even run a breast screening recall system. And that is know to save lives.

According to the latest research women who have screening are 48% less likely to die.

I wonder how many cases they will detect when the present situation is finally resolved and the recall system is introduced as promised before the election in November 2006.

[Sneaky Dolores]

When it comes to breast cancer, teaching women how to self-examine is probably the best way to catch early breast cancer. Most women aren't that familiar with the lumps and bumps that should be there and those that need to be checked out.

[Alias]

I shouldn't hold your breath waiting for this to happen on the IOM.

They can't even run a breast screening recall system. And that is know to save lives.

According to the latest research women who have screening are 48% less likely to die.

I wonder how many cases they will detect when the present situation is finally resolved and the recall system is introduced as promised before the election in November 2006.

Put it in context.. what age group are those women in the research cited and what sorts of screening? The 48% figure seems bollocks, unless you mean women for which the tumours were noticed at the screening stage (which is totally different)?

[bluemonday]

Surely as said above prevention is better than cure ( cost effective? )

I personally know two women who were early thirties when lumps turned up. They were clear but that's not always the case is it?

There's also the question of something like prostate cancer - big killer of men but also a big killer because a lot ignore the symptoms for one reason or another - yes I know that a lot of men have probably got it by the time they shuffle off this mortal coil but it also hits younger men.

Speaking personally, I keep an eye on BP, Cholesterol etc but I reckon a lot of people don't bother or can't be arsed.

Having said that, maybe better education is a way to go?

[triskelion]

Surely as said above prevention is better than cure ( cost effective? )

 

How exactly do you prevent cancer?

 

Screening isn't the same as brushing your teeth so you save on dental costs.

 

I do understand that detection rates would increase with screening, but that doesn't mean it is the most effective way of doing so.

 

As you suggest, better education (what to look for, where to look for it) are much better. There are also needs to be an effort to normalise checking yourself. Everyone in my year when I was at school was told how to check themselves (or their boyfriends) for signs of testicular cancer, but I doubt many do it.

[Albert Tatlock]

Although there would obviously need to be a better infrastructure set up to deliver it, some do think screening is cost-effective in some disease cases e.g. aneurysm screening and diabetes screening.

 

However, it is clear that things can only be cost effective if particular groups are screened e.g. over 40 or over 65, and family histories etc. The real answer to cost effective screening is in proper risk analysis i.e. go for those more likely to develop diseases first by profiling their life-styles - otherwise you will get every Tom, Dick and Harry blocking the system seeking a test when he doesn't really need one.

 

Of course full screening, anytime you want, could be made available to all anytime - it's just that it would cost billions and billions to provide in the UK, and would probably up the health budget by at least 50% - not just in the cost of screening, but by overloading the system in the first 10 years by finding things early in younger groups and being obliged to treat them earlier than usual. Many older people going to hospital tend to end up being treated for a couple of things at once, which like it or not, is more cost effective, rather than go separately two or three times over their lifetime.

 

You only get what you pay for, so for full screening either taxes would have to shoot up, or we would have to take the money from somewhere else.

[bluemonday]

Ignoring any genetic factors, I suppose you can't really prevent cancer though it's arguable that some types can be reduced by action - eg Skin - sunscreen. Lung - fags etc

 

Prevention as in diet etc for Heart Disease and Diabetes must be a way to go.

 

You've hit the nail on the head re Testicular cancer. Like prostate cancer, some self awareness might reduce the toll. IMO mens attitude is responsible for a lot of the subsequent cost. Can't see what the problem is - men are always fiddling so a legitimate reason ought to be welcomed...........

[Moghrey Mie]

I shouldn't hold your breath waiting for this to happen on the IOM.

They can't even run a breast screening recall system. And that is know to save lives.

According to the latest research women who have screening are 48% less likely to die.

I wonder how many cases they will detect when the present situation is finally resolved and the recall system is introduced as promised before the election in November 2006.

Put it in context.. what age group are those women in the research cited and what sorts of screening? The 48% figure seems bollocks, unless you mean women for which the tumours were noticed at the screening stage (which is totally different)?

 

 

The study was carried out by Stephen Duffy, professor of cancer screening with Cancer Research UK, and compared the screening histories of 300 women who had died of breast cancer in East Anglia with 600 women of the same age who were still living.

'The results showed that the NHS screening programme has been even more effective at saving lives than we predicted.'

 

Reported in the British Journal of Cancer.

[Tyge Brahe]

The study was carried out by Stephen Duffy, professor of cancer screening with Cancer Research UK, and compared the screening histories of 300 women who had died of breast cancer in East Anglia with 600 women of the same age who were still living.

'The results showed that the NHS screening programme has been even more effective at saving lives than we predicted.'

 

Reported in the British Journal of Cancer.

 

Although Professor Baum (did you say Baum?) thinks this is due to improved treatment:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7176386.stm

Says at least 30% rather than 48% as well.

 

I have deep moral reservation about forced public health measures…..

You're right to be suspicious. They kept writing to a friend of mine saying she should be screened for cervical cancer until she realised she was the victim of a smear campaign.