It’s used here, on Breastlight’s home page. If you search for them on Google, it comes up; “Breastlight TM; breast exam, breast checking, breast screening..” I’d like to know what kinds of things come to mind when we are told this device is for ‘earlier detection’. ( I know what I think, but […]
Continue Reading →The Advertising Standards Authority – fit for purpose?
I’ve just had a complaint responded to. The company concerned will now apparently withdraw their non evidenced based claim that their product “helps detect cancer early”. This claim has been made for some time, it’s nonsense, and it’s right that it goes. But: the letter from the ASA says that since the company will voluntarily amend their […]
Continue Reading →DCIS, overtreatment and professionalism
There’s an article in the Guardian describing the US treatment of a woman who had DCIS diagnosed at screening, in one breast. She went on to have bilateral mastectomy, with flap reconstruction, an autologous blood transfusion, and a stay in ITU. The author writes ” It is so confusing. What was that all about? Cancer? […]
Continue Reading →Myrios and their adverts on the tube
Myrios are running adverts on the London tube. This company offers blood testing for various conditions. I am troubled by the evidence and practice of their testing. “We always advise you visit your local pharmacist who will be able to recommend the right test based on your health concerns.” They also say, in their […]
Continue Reading →What’s a conflict of interest when it comes to breast screening?
The medical press is carrying a lot about the latest international arguments about breast screening. The BMJ carried an excellent editorial ‘Mammography wars” highlighting the recent Canadian taskforce on the subject. This called for a halt to routine breast examination, and a starting age of 50 before starting screening mammography, which they recommended to be […]
Continue Reading →Review of breast cancer screening evidence
Professor Susan Bewley challenged Prof Mike Richards on the evidence for her invite to breast screening, in the BMJ. He responded by saying a review was already underway, but it sounds like a weird review. He says that “An independent review of the research evidence (randomised controlled studies and observational studies) is being undertaken, led […]
Continue Reading →Breast screening challenged (again)
Surely we shall see some progress on proper information about breast screening soon? From this week’s BMJ: basically, improvements in breast cancer treatment, not access to breast screening, can explain improvements in mortality from the disease. This is important information for women who are deciding whether or not to have breast screening. As I’ve said […]
Continue Reading →“It is time to stop this screening nonsense”
North America is not catching up: I think they are getting ahead in terms of sense about screening. PSA screening in the UK is available, and meant to be about ‘choice’, even then health charities say they “Supports the right of every man over 50 – and younger men at higher risk – to make an […]
Continue Reading →Ovarian cancer screening is ineffective and harmful
Important paper in JAMA: ovarian cancer screening using transvaginal ultrasound and serum Ca-125 testing does not reduce mortality from ovarian cancer. Worse, there “Diagnostic evaluation following a false-positive screening test result was associated with complications”. The harms of this ineffective intervention: “Of 3285 women with false-positive results, 1080 underwent surgery (32.9% for oophorectomy) as part […]
Continue Reading →NICE guidance on ovarian cancer diagnosis
NICE, in new guidance, are telling GPs to perform CA-125 tumour markers in patients with possible ovarian cancer. They say “Asking the right question – first tests Measure serum CA125 in primary care in women with symptoms that suggest ovarian cancer (see section 2.1 on page 43). If serum CA125 is 35 IU/ml or greater, arrange […]
Continue Reading →