Home > Uncategorized > When cancer isn’t really there

When cancer isn’t really there

Post on July 20, 2010 by 3 Comments »

The NYT has another excellent article on quality problems in the health care system caused by misdiagnosis and overtreatment. In this case, biopsies testing for a very early type of breast cancer are misread a significant portion of the time, often leading to unnecessary radiation and surgery.

Amazingly, there is no standard training or experience requirement for doctors to meet who are reading the images that result in a call of cancer. Images of a patient can be easily sent anywhere electronically, thus eliminating the argument that smaller communities don’t have the ability to have access to specialists who can adequately read the patient record. And when the result of a biopsy can have such a significant result on a patient’s life, it pays to get it right:

Like most women, Ms. Long had regarded the breast biopsy as the gold standard, an infallible way to identify cancer. “I thought it was pretty cut and dried,” said Ms. Long, who is a registered nurse.

As it turns out, diagnosing the earliest stage of breast cancer can be surprisingly difficult, prone to both outright error and case-by-case disagreement over whether a cluster of cells is benign or malignant, according to an examination of breast cancer cases by The New York Times.

Possibly related posts:

  1. The genius of the market
  2. Newsweek: Many common health treatments ineffective, harmful
  3. Measuring Economic Hardship

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments (Closed):3

  1. Joseph Coletti
    July 20, 2010 at 10:25 pm

    That’s why prevention isn’t always the best policy

  2. Rob Schofield
    July 21, 2010 at 8:56 am

    More to the point, it’s why a system that relies exclusively upon the profit motive in determining the care that should be provided and that allows docs to view gigantic salaries as their God-given right is inherently wacky and wasteful.

  3. David
    July 21, 2010 at 11:10 pm

    In my 50+ years on earth and, until recently a very healthy individual, I can tell you that I have yet to encounter even the slightest hint that a physician or medican institution was more motivated by profits than my general welfare. Where does this garbage come from ?

    Also, from where does Searing summize that Oncologists (Doctors who specialize in cancer treatment) lack the qualifications and know how to make informed decisions? During post MRI/CAT Scan activity, I have yet to hear the technicians or PA’s even hint at a diagnosis, with virtually every one of them stating “they are not qualified to offer opinions for scans.” I’ve also relied on second opinions before commiting to anything major to mimimize impact on me and my insurance carrier, but in Searing’s world, even a second opinion would be ‘wasteful’, and that “board certification” is the magic bullet for future prevention ?

    He takes a single case of alleged misdiagosis, and somehow correllates it to a “major” medical issue. The article stated that at least 50,000 women a year are diagnosed ‘early’, and that benign tumors (that have greater than 30% chance of becoming malignant) are removed every year. That’s 15,000 women a year that undergo minor treatment, with the goal of avoiding much more expensive treatment under potentially life threatening conditions at a later date !

    The referenced article does nothing to support Searing’s claims. Also, I can tell you this: if, on the rare occassion, I were to be misdiagnosed as false/positive, I’d be damned grateful that my medical team ruled in favor of life extension, versus putting me on a waiting list so some review board could determine the “viability” of services – like they do in the UK and Canada. Hello death panels, good bye hypocratic oath !

    You are right about one thing: early detection can be a challenge, however it also guarantees the highest rate of cure/prevention – while reducing future patient services, lost wages, and medical expenses.

    Actually, when I read the article, after hearing about how “greedy” doctors are, what does it say about a woman when physicians erred towards protecting her from a life threatening disease, which may have inconvenienced her, and they later confessed to their mistake – only to have the woman sue them over it? What would she have done if she really had the cancer, and was told otherwise, until it was too late ?

    Truth is, especially with this example, lawyers, and their perceived “God-given right to gigantic settlements, are a major “medical” problem across this nation and the fact that someone like Searing is “helping” to steer NC down the creek with Obamacare means we cannot let our guard down.