Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any medical concerns we suggest you consult your GP.

Breast Cancer Advice updated...

(9 Posts)
Erebus Tue 30-Oct-12 10:22:04

BBC news

Now, the thing I don't get is -how can they know that any of these detected 'cancers' that they go on to treat aren't 'life-threatening'? That had they left well alone, it would all have been fine? They don't have an exact 'control group' to measure against, do they?

I am genuinely intrigued as to how it can be decided that 'treatment was unnecessary' when a cancer is detected.

smee Tue 30-Oct-12 11:13:12

Having had BC, I certainly wouldn't take the risk. I hope it doesn't put women off from going to screening. The NHS is genuinely fantastic for BC. I had fantastic care and advice all the way through. No question they saved my life. smile

Peppermintcrumb Tue 30-Oct-12 22:45:59

My confusion with both breast and cervical screening is that it appears that lots of women would have to have unnecessary procedures and over treatment to catch the very few women who MAY have cancer. For instance, a woman has a lifetime risk of cervical cancer of less than 1% and a 1 in 8 chance of getting breast cancer (if you live to 90) according to Cancer Research UK.

So where does that leave me? On the one hand I am afraid of getting cancer, but screening is not the answer. It won't stop me GETTING cancer. What are the chances of it being spotted at the very moment I am screened (in the case of BC)?

There needs to be more information given to women before any screening takes place so an informed choice can be made.

Today's statement on BC has just confused me even more and has made my screening decision much harder.

SoggySummer Tue 30-Oct-12 22:51:17

Just thinking of the money that could be saved by putting loads of women off screening and then all those "un-necessaries" they wont need to treat as well.

A clever cost cutting exercise at a time when the country is on a mission to save every penny it can - no matter the cost ( as long as its not a financial cost).

Yes - I am VERY cynical.

Wolfiefan Tue 30-Oct-12 23:20:49

1% chance of being over diagnosed?
As I have found a breast lump I think I will still get it checked out!

trice Fri 02-Nov-12 15:42:34

I had breast cancer. I think that screening saves lives.

I would rather have treatment that I didn't need than need treatment I didn't have.

Troymaiden Sun 04-Nov-12 08:18:00

I had my first screening two years ago and was diagnosed with BC. It was aggressive, if I hadn't had that screening probably wouldn't be writing this message today.

Yes I'd definitely have screening.

always get a lump checked out,or indeed anything suspicious or unusual for you. I would encourage people to go for screening too -if non-invasive cancer is found then you would have the option of watchful waiting- which would mean keeping an eye on the area -if it developed into invasive cancer then it could be treated very quickly with probably the minimum of intervention (with luck lumpectomy and radiotherapy) I was screened routinely and found to have a mixture of invasive and non-invasive carcinoma after a biopsy- I had treatment which was very doable and after 3 years have recently found that I have secondaries on my lungs- I find it very hard to get my head around this leap from good prognosis to advanced disease - what I'm saying is that it's a pretty unpredicatable disease and to be taken seriously.

NotMostPeople Sun 04-Nov-12 08:51:14

I have annual screening as I have family history of BC. I wouldn't think twice about it as if I did have BC it would be picked up sooner than a lump would appear. A very good friend of mine died due to BC, she went to the doctors three times before she was sent to have a mammogram. I often wonder if she might still be here if she'd been sent the first time she saw the Dr.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now