http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21016553

This sounds like good news.



They also listed womb cancer as a possible side effect on the news on the radio this morning. I am always cautious about drugs that are designed to relieve or prevent a condition form occurring, but list a similar (or even the same) problem as a possible side effect. Not being medically minded, I don’t know why this would be.

There's a major kerfuffle going on at the mo in the medical community about clinical trials and how they are reported. Right now, I'd be very wary of any 'wonder drug' that will also stands to make a drug company a buttload of money. Imagine how much this is going to cost - giving thousands of women a costly new preventative treatment to prevent 20 per 1000 getting breast cancer, which these days is often curable with no lasting ill effects anyway if it's caught early.

I can't imagine this makes better sense than a highly proactive screening program for the women involved. The equipment is already there and mostly paid for and screening no side effects. As oppose to this drug, which sounds rather expensive and the side effects are possibly worse than what it's preventing...

Jon

I imagine there's a cost/benefit analysis swimming around in the Department of Health somewhere. They certainly wouldn't be suggesting it unless it was somehow going to save money in the long run.

I'm sure there's no other possible reason they might be suggesting paying for a treatment that would make a company that pays non-executive directorships and such very well a humping great pile of money.

Jon

Aren't some of the women unlikely to benefit from some of these treatments?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

Technically, the only ones to benefit are the ones that using the drug stopped from getting cancer. All the rest - the ones who were never going to get cancer regardless (roughly 2/3 of any sample) and the ones who still get it anyway - get no benefit.

Jon

It won't stop you getting cancer but it will reduce your risk and depends (IIRC) in the type of breast cancer you get. Still have to weigh up the pros and cons. I think it'll be useful for those who are high risk and identified as likely to develop breast cancer to save them from having double mastectomies.

I thought that there was a genetic component to why some people had no benefit from some treatments. So it would not help them either way.

I'm inclined to agree, although if a woman's GP determines a high risk of developing cancer then preventative measures should be considered carefully.

However, there is also a small risk of screening. There's obviously no risk involved in examination for lumps which should probably be part of every woman's routine, but x-rays are known to increase the risk of cancer. I believe that's one reason that mammograms are not routine in young women.

The other problem with the current breast screening programme is the low sensitivity - basically a lot of women undergo unnecessary investigations and distress because the current screening picks up lots of false postives.

Better to be over sensitive than under though?

It leads to a very high number of women having chemo and radio when they were never going to be ill, and people can die of those treatments so I don't know if it's that good.

The cloaked one said investigations rather than treatments. If anything is found there is usually a biopsy where they take a sample. I'd rather be checked out to know I'm ok than to have it missed during a mammogram and die.

I think that people with higher risk factors should be checked more regularly. So the risks of a mammogram missing cancer would be reduced. Problem is that it would cost more to check more regularly and doctors will be reluctant to spend their budgets in that way.