Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Health & Wellness

MRIs Aren't a Magic Bullet for Breast Cancer Detection

By Dr. Susan Love and Sue Rochman, Ms. Magazine. Posted January 2, 2008.


Women should demand more inventive breast-cancer research -- not just more MRIs.

In the quest to find breast cancer early, all eyes now appear to be focused on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The drumbeat grew even louder when, earlier this year, the American Cancer Society released new breast cancer screening guidelines recommending that high-risk women receive an annual MRI along with their mammogram. Yet no study has yet shown that finding cancer with MRIs before it might be found on mammography will actually save more lives.

Having had it pounded into us for years that the best way to survive breast cancer is to find it early, the previous statement undoubtedly sounds at best counterintuitive or at worst heretical. But the fact is that many of the tumors found by MRI -- and mammography -- are probably harmless.

Why aren't we trying to find ways to prevent these cancers from even occurring so that women won't ever need to have surgery? It's because it's easier and more lucrative for the research-industrial-medical complex to improve on what we have (me-too drugs, for example) than to explore completely different approaches to the problem. What if we could squeeze a drop of fluid from our breast ducts, where all breast cancer starts, and put it on a dipstick? If the stick turned blue, you would know that you had the conditions in your breast that might lead to cancer. What if breast cancer, like cervical cancer, is actually caused by a virus, and a vaccine could be developed to prevent it? What if we could treat breast cancer by putting chemotherapy into the breast ducts?

We need to foster more doctors and researchers who are willing to look at breast cancer with fresh eyes and without preconceived notions, and we need a mechanism to fund them to test their ideas. Women should not be clamoring to be classified as high-risk patients in order to get MRIs; instead, they should be demanding high-risk research that has the potential to bring us closer to our goal: ending breast cancer. Now.

(The full text of this article appears in the Fall issue of Ms., in which the magazine celebrates its 35th anniversary. The issue is now available on newsstands and by subscription from www.msmagazine.com.)

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: mris, mammography, cancer research, breast cancer

Dr. Susan Love is president and medical director of the Dr. Susan Love Research Foundation. Sue Rochman is a freelance health writer and the medical editor for the foundation’s Web site.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Health and Wellness! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Prevention far better than cure, as usual
Posted by: jparsons on Jan 3, 2008 1:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The statistics are stark - breast cancer is
directly linked to lifetime estrogen exposure.

There are two major ways to control this. (You
can't control your genes, obviously)

1. A low animal product and lowfat diet - this
means menarche starts late and menopause early, so
the high-estrogen years are much reduced.
Generally this also leads to lower body fat;
fat also being an active estrogen factor.

This is strongly demonstrated in countries like Japan,
with relatively low rates of breast
cancer.

(Reducing hormone levels via diet can make a
difference even after cancer has been diagnosed.
Dr Heidrich is a very inspirational example.)

2. Have some babies and breastfeed them for a
significant period of time - and that might be
into toddlerhood. During these years, your
body is getting a timeout from the hormones
you have while fully fertile. It is well
established that women who don't have children and
or don't breastfeed have higher rates of
breast cancer than those who do.

It's inevitable that these facts will
be taken as offensive moral stands - I really
just intend to point out what we know already
biologically, but doesn't get lots of press in
the War on Cancer, which likes its grants and drugs.

As solutions for any individual
woman, these may seem impossible or extreme.
However, there are women out there who are
getting their healthy breasts cut off due to high family
risk of cancer, because that's the only thing
they think will help. That's pretty extreme.

(More at Hormone diseases)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THERE'S NO MIRACLE, YET
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jan 3, 2008 7:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We cannot ever hope to find a way to cure and/or a way to prevent breast cancer or anything else when the real goal is to save money. The cost factor stands in the way of every good idea we hear. It should be a consideration but not the sole reason for deciding what does or does not work. The bulk of funding does not go to the people who 'do all the work'. It goes to the corporate execs. Move the $$$ where it does the most good. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]