Showing posts with label Disease. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Disease. Show all posts

Breast cancer screening 'works and we should move on'


Breast cancer screening 'works and we should move on': researchers - Women should undergo breast cancer screening because it halves the chance of them dying of the disease, according to a new study that claims to draw a line under the controversy.

Doubts have increasingly been raised over the benefits of mammography screening in recent years.



http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01215/cancer_Breast_scre_1215397b.jpg
The Australian study backs up what the majority of cancer experts think - that breast cancer screening does save lives.


A minority of academics question whether it cuts death rates at all, while more have raised concerns about the numbers of women who go through treatment unnecessarily due to a postive test result.

Last October Professor Sir Mike Richards, the Department of Health’s cancer ‘tzar’, announced he would be leading a review of the evidence.

But now Australian scientists have published research which they claim definitively shows x-ray screening works, and that it is time to “move on”.

The study compared screening rates in 427 Australian women aged 50 to 69 who had died from breast cancer, against screening rates among similar 3,650 women of the same age who were still alive.

The 'case-controlled' study found screening attendance was much lower in those who had died of the disease, which kills more than 12,000 women a year in Britain.

The academics, from Melbourne University, said this finding was consistent with “numerous studies from around the world”.

“Comparison with similar studies showed an average estimate of a 49 per cent reduced risk of dying,” said the university team. The study is published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention.

Dr Carolyn Nickson, who led it, said: “Sound research methods have been used in this study.

“I believe it is time to move on from the debate about whether screening reduces mortality and to instead direct research resources to help improve the program for women who choose to use it.”

Last year academics at the Nordic Cochrane Centre in Denmark concluded mammography had “little detectable impact" on death rates, after comparing similar countries or regions that had introduced screening programmes at different times. Improved treatment was much more important, they said.

The same researchers later argued that, far from being harmless, screening led to up to 10 women having unnecessary treatment - including surgery and radiotherapy - for every life saved.

The problem is that screening picks up both tumours that will spread and those that will not. The difficulty is telling which is which.

Karsten Jørgensen, one of the researchers, said the problem with case-controlled studies was, no matter how well designed, they could never actually prove they were comparing like with like.

The most important problem was what is called "self-selection bias", he said, explaining: "Those who attend are simply more healthy for a number of reasons than those who choose not to."

A Department of Health spokesman said Prof Richards’ review would be published “in the next few months”.

He said current advice remained unchanged: to urge all women to go to screening when invited. ( telegraph.co.uk )

READ MORE - Breast cancer screening 'works and we should move on'

Ovarian cancer screening does not cut death risk


Ovarian cancer screening does not cut death risk - Women who are screened regularly for ovarian cancer, which is often diagnosed too late to be treated, show no lower risk of dying from it, a large US study showed on Saturday.

The randomized clinical trial of close to 80,000 women age 55 to 74 also found that some women underwent unnecessary surgery after false positives came up in either their ultrasound or blood scans.

Annual screening for ovarian cancer does not cut death rates in women at average risk "but does increase invasive medical procedures and associated harms," said the study in the Journal of the American Medical Association.


http://www.channelnewsasia.com/imagegallery/store/phpeUyyKu.jpg


Similar rates of cancer and deaths were seen across the both groups -- 212 ovarian cancer cases and 118 deaths from it in the intervention group over 13 years of follow up.

The unscreened group saw 176 cases of ovarian cancer and 118 deaths caused by it. The difference in survival rates "was not statistically significant," the study said.

However 3,285 women received false-positive results, and 1,080 underwent surgery to have one or both ovaries removed.

Fifteen percent of these women experienced "major complications," said the study led by Saundra Buys of the University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City.

There may be ways to improve upon the screening, such as examining small changes in the CA-125 blood test over time, rather than by a single measure as was done in this study, the authors said.

But even the best methods for annual screening may not help when it comes to a disease like ovarian cancer, which has often spread to other organs by the time it is detected and is the fifth deadliest cancer among women.

"Evidence from modeling suggests that aggressive cancers progress rapidly through the early stages, limiting the ability to detect these cancers with yearly screening." ( AFP )

READ MORE - Ovarian cancer screening does not cut death risk

Alzheimer's disease may cause global cash crunch


Alzheimer's disease may cause global cash crunch - Alzheimer's disease could cause a global cash crunch in coming generations - as people begin to regularly live to 100 - and must be considered a serious fiscal danger, experts said on Thursday.

Already 24-37 million people worldwide live with the incurable form of dementia, and that number is projected to reach 115 million by 2050, a panel of Alzheimer's disease experts told the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

As women bear fewer children and the population ages, the world will become increasingly ill-prepared to cope with large numbers of dependent elderly people and must begin investing more in research to prevent the disease, they said.

Places like Russia, Europe, the United States and parts of Asia are experiencing "declining populations, fewer workers and more people dependent upon public health systems for their support," said George Vradenburg, founder of an advocacy group called USAgainstAlzheimer's.


http://www.channelnewsasia.com/imagegallery/store/phpGYRHFu.jpg


"That is producing fiscal stress on our health systems around the world and it is producing the risk that the developed world - particularly the Asian rim and particularly western Europe - are going to be declining in their economic growth and prosperity in the coming years."

According to the London-based Alzheimer's Disease International, the total estimated worldwide cost of the disease in 2010 was 604 billion dollars, or nearly one percent of global GDP.

"If Alzheimer's were a country, it would be the 18th largest economy based on GDP," said Daisy Acosta, the chair of ADI, describing Alzheimer's as "the single most important health and social crisis of the 21st century."

"The impact of this disease today is massive and will accelerate with the years to come," she said.

And yet, compared to other major health woes such as cancer and HIV/AIDS, the amount of research money being spent on preventing it is minimal.

"We invest six billion a year for cancer, four billion dollars a year for heart disease, two billion dollars a year for AIDS," said Bill Thies, chief scientific officer at the Alzheimer's Association.

"We are at about 450 million a year for Alzheimer's disease," he said.

"Without increasing that significantly we are going to see the peak of this epidemic and we are going to see the worst possibilities of it."

The experts acknowledged that the strain of caring for an Alzheimer's patient usually falls on the family, but in the years to come nations as a whole could prepare themselves better by considering how to run an aging economy.

"My grandchildren, aging experts tell me, will live to 110 or 120," said Vradenburg, noting that after age 85 one in two people is diagnosed with dementia.

"We are going to see increasingly a physically able population but a cognitively disabled population."

In order to prevent the older set from consuming a nation's economic resources for health care, countries must think about how to put dementia patients to work in order to keep their economies from collapsing, he said.

"We need to change our aging populations from people who are taking a public benefit... and turn them into productive taxpayers who are participants in the workforce," Vradenburg said.

"Those countries that get it right and figure out how to support their aging populations - keeping them healthy and keeping them productive - are going to be winners in the 21st century."

Those who do not will be "losers," he added.

"It is critical for the world to begin to recognise this not just as a health issue but as a fiscal issue."

Eric Hall, president of the Alzheimer's Foundation of America, called for a global meeting early next year to compare notes among nations on how to best approach the problem and formulate a global action plan.

House Representative Ed Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts, said the world must come together to find a solution.

"We are in a race against time here... and that is across the whole planet," said Markey.

"It is imperative for us to have an action plan that does work, because failure is not an option here." ( AFP )

READ MORE - Alzheimer's disease may cause global cash crunch
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...