By : Kevin Pho
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recently released their recommendations for breast cancer screening.
Previously, they had recommended a mammogram every 1 to 2 years for women between the ages of 40 to 49.
Now, they recommend more intensive screening:
Due to the high incidence of breast cancer in the US and the potential to reduce deaths from it when caught early, The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (The College) today issued new breast cancer screening guidelines that recommend mammography screening be offered annually to women beginning at age 40. Previous College guidelines recommended mammograms every one to two years starting at age 40 and annually beginning at age 50.
This contradicts the 2009 recommendation from the USPSTF, which recommended an individualized approach and against routine screening for women aged 40-49.
No wonder patients are confused.
In our society, which values tests and generally believes that earlier cancer detection is better care, the ACOG recommendations were met with media acclaim.
Gary Schwitzer, for instance, points out the bias in CNN’s reporting the guidelines, and specifically takes senior medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen’s Tweet on the issue to task:
On many occasions that we’ve written about on this blog in recent years, CNN has demonstrated a bias in favor of screening – touting benefits, minimizing harms. Sanjay Gupta’s badgering of US Preventive Services Task Force member Lucy Marion will always stand out in my mind – and in the minds of many of who saw it – as opinionated “attack” journalism that reflects the polarization we often see in politics now creeping (leaping?) into health care and into health care journalism.
As to which guideline to believe, physicians will be divided. I suspect that physicians who practice more strict evidence-based medicine will go with the USPSTF recommendations, while gynecologists will follow their college’s more aggressive recommendations.
Although I’m a proponent of clinical guidelines, obtaining the needed consensus will be difficult. There are too many proverbial cooks in the pot, with every medical society releasing potentially conflicting recommendations and confusing both doctors and patients.
@KevinMD
Showing posts with label Breast Cancer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Breast Cancer. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Saturday, May 21, 2011
What Patients Need To Know About Osteoporosis
Osteoporosis is a condition that is sure to become increasingly diagnosed as our population ages.
Osteoporosis is significant because it is associated with an increased risk of bone fracture, including fracture of the hip and vertebra, which are the cause of significant morbidity, mortality, loss of independence and medical expense in the elderly. In current clinical practice, osteoporosis is diagnosed on the basis of either the occurrence of a low-impact or fragility fracture, or on the basis of measured low bone mineral density (BMD). A low-impact fracture is one that occurs after a fall from standing height or less; a fragility fracture occurs spontaneously or with no trauma (cough, sneeze, sudden movement).
Bone strength is determined by bone density, bone “quality,” and bone microarchitecture. Of these features, bone density, or mass, is what we are able to measure. Osteoporosis is defined by World Health Organization criteria based on a person’s bone density by dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Osteoporosis occurs when bone density is below 2.5 standard deviations from the mean for non-Hispanic white women between ages 20 and 29 (T score < -2.5). Osteopenia is defined by bone density of between 1 and 2.5 standard deviations below the mean for non-Hispanic white women in their twenties (T score of -1 to -2.5).
In recent years a variety of effective medications have been developed and approved for treatment of low bone density. Nonetheless, there are still significant gaps in our knowledge. Recently, the FDA issued a warning about an increased risk of “atypical fractures” that has been observed amongst women who take bisphosphonates, the most commonly prescribed drugs for osteoporosis. A few years ago these drugs were also linked to another rare problem, osteonecrosis of the jaw. This was primarily described in cancer patients and those on cancer medications, but the finding got patients, dentists, and oral surgeons quite worked up over the potential risks.
In clinical practice there is significant variation in the practice of screening for and treating osteoporosis and its precursor, osteopenia. According to national epidemiological data from NHANES III over 56% of women over age 50 have reduced bone density, of these 16% have osteoporosis. In their 80s 87% of women have reduced bone density and 44% of have osteoporosis. The key to prevention and treatment is trying to figure out who and when to treat aggressively to best prevent fractures. Current guidelines by the US Preventive Services Task Force support screening women at age 65. However, many post-menopausal women under age 65 are also at risk and the conservative evidence-based USPSTF guidelines do not comment on which of these women should also be screened. Other professional guidelines, such as those issued by the National Osteoporosis Foundation, support screening younger women who are post-menopausal and who have risk factors.
A variety of clinical tools exist to help women quantify their osteoporosis risk.
Osteoporosis risk factors include:
• Low body weight (<57 kg)
• Asian or Caucasian ethnicity
• Personal history of fragility fracture
• Family history of osteoporosis
• Smoking
• Drinking > 2 glasses of alcohol per day
• Excessive caffeine intake
• Certain medications (glucocorticoids)
• Sedentary lifestyle
• Amenorrhea (lapses in menstruation prior to menopause)
• Eating disorders
• Marathon running
• Dietary deficiencies of calcium and vitamin D
• Chronic health conditions (chronic liver and kidney disease, rheumatoid arthritis)
Many women fall into these increased risk categories and thus are screened before age 65 leaving them with a diagnosis of osteopenia or osteoporosis and creating the conundrum of what to do for the remainder of a woman’s life.
In general, most women with osteopenia should not receive pharmacologic therapy unless they are higher risk, or have already suffered a fracture. Instead, they should be counseled to institute behavioral measures, such as increased weight-bearing exercise and increases in calcium and vitamin D supplementation. When these women should be rescreened is not clear, but probably no more often than every two years. Tracking the rate of bone density decline may help identify women who subsequently should receive drug therapy.
Effective pharmacologic treatments for osteoporosis are available and are, in general, well tolerated. Medication options include the bisphosphonates: alendronate, residronate, ibandronate and zoledronic acid, hormonal treatments (estrogen and selective estrogen receptor modulators), and recombinant parathyroid hormone (teriparatide). Of these options, the oral bisphosphonates, alendronate (Fosamax) and residronate (Actonel), have the most evidence supporting their efficacy in fracture prevention, and are considered first line. These drugs, however, can be somewhat inconvenient to administer because of their poor bioavailability that requires them to be taken on an empty stomach for best absorption. In addition, they are associated with gastrointestinal side effects—specifically esophagitis, and for this reason are contraindicated in patients with precancerous changes of the espophagus, “Barrett’s Esophagus.” For patients who experience gastrointestinal side effects the intravenous bisphosphonate, zoledronic acid may be administered every one to two years.
Hormonal therapies, such as estrogen, are effective treatment for low bone density. However, as indicated by the results of the Women’s Health Initiate, their use has been associated with an increased risk of breast cancer and cardiovascular disease. Raloxifene, a selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM), is approved for both prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. Its use, while associated with a reduction in breast cancer risk, is also associated with an increased risk of thomboembolism. Its effect on cardiovascular disease appears to be neutral.
The appropriate duration of therapy and frequency of monitoring patients who are on pharmaceutical treatment are areas that remain ill-defined. Studies have indicated that 5 years of alendronate may be adequate for many average risk women. However, my experience in clinical practice is that many women are left on these drugs for years and years. Some have advocated drug “holidays” after five years of therapy. The largest randomized controlled trial looking at alendronate use and fracture outcomes was 10 years in duration, which in my view calls into question the safety of prolonged use.
Many questions remain about how to approach the treatment of aging bones to prevent the debilitating outcome of bone fracture. Seasoned clinicians have seen the problems that may occur in some cases with treating large populations of well patients for normal life processes (postmenopausal estrogen replacement therapy). Let’s hope that future research will address the question of when to treat with medication and for how long with further precision. Until then let’s use appropriate caution when prescribing medicine for normal senior bones.
by : Juliet K. Mavromatis
Osteoporosis is significant because it is associated with an increased risk of bone fracture, including fracture of the hip and vertebra, which are the cause of significant morbidity, mortality, loss of independence and medical expense in the elderly. In current clinical practice, osteoporosis is diagnosed on the basis of either the occurrence of a low-impact or fragility fracture, or on the basis of measured low bone mineral density (BMD). A low-impact fracture is one that occurs after a fall from standing height or less; a fragility fracture occurs spontaneously or with no trauma (cough, sneeze, sudden movement).
Bone strength is determined by bone density, bone “quality,” and bone microarchitecture. Of these features, bone density, or mass, is what we are able to measure. Osteoporosis is defined by World Health Organization criteria based on a person’s bone density by dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Osteoporosis occurs when bone density is below 2.5 standard deviations from the mean for non-Hispanic white women between ages 20 and 29 (T score < -2.5). Osteopenia is defined by bone density of between 1 and 2.5 standard deviations below the mean for non-Hispanic white women in their twenties (T score of -1 to -2.5).
In recent years a variety of effective medications have been developed and approved for treatment of low bone density. Nonetheless, there are still significant gaps in our knowledge. Recently, the FDA issued a warning about an increased risk of “atypical fractures” that has been observed amongst women who take bisphosphonates, the most commonly prescribed drugs for osteoporosis. A few years ago these drugs were also linked to another rare problem, osteonecrosis of the jaw. This was primarily described in cancer patients and those on cancer medications, but the finding got patients, dentists, and oral surgeons quite worked up over the potential risks.
In clinical practice there is significant variation in the practice of screening for and treating osteoporosis and its precursor, osteopenia. According to national epidemiological data from NHANES III over 56% of women over age 50 have reduced bone density, of these 16% have osteoporosis. In their 80s 87% of women have reduced bone density and 44% of have osteoporosis. The key to prevention and treatment is trying to figure out who and when to treat aggressively to best prevent fractures. Current guidelines by the US Preventive Services Task Force support screening women at age 65. However, many post-menopausal women under age 65 are also at risk and the conservative evidence-based USPSTF guidelines do not comment on which of these women should also be screened. Other professional guidelines, such as those issued by the National Osteoporosis Foundation, support screening younger women who are post-menopausal and who have risk factors.
A variety of clinical tools exist to help women quantify their osteoporosis risk.
Osteoporosis risk factors include:
• Low body weight (<57 kg)
• Asian or Caucasian ethnicity
• Personal history of fragility fracture
• Family history of osteoporosis
• Smoking
• Drinking > 2 glasses of alcohol per day
• Excessive caffeine intake
• Certain medications (glucocorticoids)
• Sedentary lifestyle
• Amenorrhea (lapses in menstruation prior to menopause)
• Eating disorders
• Marathon running
• Dietary deficiencies of calcium and vitamin D
• Chronic health conditions (chronic liver and kidney disease, rheumatoid arthritis)
Many women fall into these increased risk categories and thus are screened before age 65 leaving them with a diagnosis of osteopenia or osteoporosis and creating the conundrum of what to do for the remainder of a woman’s life.
In general, most women with osteopenia should not receive pharmacologic therapy unless they are higher risk, or have already suffered a fracture. Instead, they should be counseled to institute behavioral measures, such as increased weight-bearing exercise and increases in calcium and vitamin D supplementation. When these women should be rescreened is not clear, but probably no more often than every two years. Tracking the rate of bone density decline may help identify women who subsequently should receive drug therapy.
Effective pharmacologic treatments for osteoporosis are available and are, in general, well tolerated. Medication options include the bisphosphonates: alendronate, residronate, ibandronate and zoledronic acid, hormonal treatments (estrogen and selective estrogen receptor modulators), and recombinant parathyroid hormone (teriparatide). Of these options, the oral bisphosphonates, alendronate (Fosamax) and residronate (Actonel), have the most evidence supporting their efficacy in fracture prevention, and are considered first line. These drugs, however, can be somewhat inconvenient to administer because of their poor bioavailability that requires them to be taken on an empty stomach for best absorption. In addition, they are associated with gastrointestinal side effects—specifically esophagitis, and for this reason are contraindicated in patients with precancerous changes of the espophagus, “Barrett’s Esophagus.” For patients who experience gastrointestinal side effects the intravenous bisphosphonate, zoledronic acid may be administered every one to two years.
Hormonal therapies, such as estrogen, are effective treatment for low bone density. However, as indicated by the results of the Women’s Health Initiate, their use has been associated with an increased risk of breast cancer and cardiovascular disease. Raloxifene, a selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM), is approved for both prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. Its use, while associated with a reduction in breast cancer risk, is also associated with an increased risk of thomboembolism. Its effect on cardiovascular disease appears to be neutral.
The appropriate duration of therapy and frequency of monitoring patients who are on pharmaceutical treatment are areas that remain ill-defined. Studies have indicated that 5 years of alendronate may be adequate for many average risk women. However, my experience in clinical practice is that many women are left on these drugs for years and years. Some have advocated drug “holidays” after five years of therapy. The largest randomized controlled trial looking at alendronate use and fracture outcomes was 10 years in duration, which in my view calls into question the safety of prolonged use.
Many questions remain about how to approach the treatment of aging bones to prevent the debilitating outcome of bone fracture. Seasoned clinicians have seen the problems that may occur in some cases with treating large populations of well patients for normal life processes (postmenopausal estrogen replacement therapy). Let’s hope that future research will address the question of when to treat with medication and for how long with further precision. Until then let’s use appropriate caution when prescribing medicine for normal senior bones.
by : Juliet K. Mavromatis
Saturday, January 15, 2011
On Breast Elastography
Breast ultrasound elastography is 12% more sensitive than MR diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in determining malignancy of breast masses assessed as BI-RADS category 4, and it's almost 10% more accurate, according to a new study published in the January American Journal of Roentgenology.
Clinicians currently use B-mode sonography and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI to classify breast lesions based on the standard BI-RADS categorizations. But newer techniques such as ultrasound elastography -- which assesses the softness or stiffness of breast tissue -- and DWI-MRI are being evaluated as adjuncts to these modalities in the hope of better identifying the character of a breast lesion.
Hiroko Satake, MD, of Nagoya University School of Medicine in Japan, and colleagues compared the abilities of ultrasound elastography and DWI-MRI to predict malignancy of breast masses. They found that not only was elastography more sensitive overall, it was more sensitive with lesions smaller than 1 cm -- more than 17% compared to DWI-MRI. In addition, it was more than 10% more accurate (AJR, January 2011, Vol. 196:1, pp. 202-209).
"Because malignant tumors predominantly are harder than benign tissues, [ultrasound elastography] significantly improves the differentiation between benign and malignant tissue," Satake and colleagues wrote. "[Our results] suggest that ultrasound elastography could be used to prevent unnecessary biopsies."
Satake's group included 115 breast masses categorized as BI-RADS 4 or 5; the masses were assessed according to combined findings from mammography, B-mode sonography, and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Two radiologists retrospectively evaluated the elasticity scores of the masses using ultrasound elastography and the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values using DWI-MRI.
"By accurately identifying benign tumors with imaging, we may be able to avoid sending patients for unnecessary biopsies," Satake and colleagues wrote. "Based on the results of our study, we recommend that patients with BI-RADS 4 masses should undergo biopsy if their ultrasound elasticity score is 4 or 5."
Of the 115 breast masses included in the study, 88 were malignant and 27 were benign. The mean diameter of the malignant lesions was 16.1 mm, the team found. The researchers compared BI-RADS assessment categories, elasticity scores, and ADC values between the benign and malignant masses. A lesion's elasticity score proved to be more sensitive and accurate in predicting malignancy than its ADC value, both overall and with lesions smaller than 1 cm.
by : Kate Madden Yee
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Annual mammograms reduce mastectomy risk in younger women
In a study of 185 women ages 40 to 50, 22% of those who had a mammogram in the year prior to diagnosis had a mastectomy, compared with 52% who did not have a mammogram in the previous year (p = 0.02).
In addition, women who had been screened in the year prior to diagnosis had smaller tumors: 17.8 mm, on average, compared with 24 mm for those who'd had mammography more than a year ago and 28.8 mm for those who never underwent screening.
They also had less likelihood of multifocal malignancy -- 12% versus 34% for those who were never screened (p = 0.003) -- and they were less likely to have high-grade disease, at 31% versus 46%, respectively (p = 0.03).
The odds of mastectomy also correlated with the size of the tumor (p = 0.04), according to Nicholas Perry, director of the London Breast Institute at Princess Grace Hospital in London.
"Our study delivers strong clinical evidence to support annual screening of women from age 40," he said.
The researchers reviewed clinical and imaging data on women who were seen at their institute between 2003 and 2009. Only 26% had mammograms prior to their diagnosis.
Of the 48 women who had ever had a mammogram, 18 had one within the year prior to diagnosis, 15 had the exam one to two years prior, and 15 had a mammogram more than two years earlier.
Perry said that the U.K. does not recommend routine breast cancer screening for women younger than 50.
"The results are striking but should not be surprising," he said, adding that he doubted they would result in a change in recommendations.
A total of 37,000 U.S. women and 7,000 British women ages 40 to 50 are diagnosed with breast cancer each year, according to Perry. Based on these rates, yearly mammograms would spare 10,000 U.S. women and 2,000 U.K. women from mastectomy annually, he said.
When asked if the annual breast screens improved overall survival, he said longer-term studies are needed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)