The only thing that I think really warrants “skepticism” is why breast cancer receives so much more attention than other types of cancer and other conditions which are more serious, statistically speaking. Prostate cancer is as common in men as breast cancer is in women, yet you hear almost nothing about it in comparison. Heart disease kills more people than all types of cancer combined.
The obvious answer is that breast cancer is viewed as “sexy” because it involves breasts. I think there is also an element of men wanting to be seen by women as someone who supports a women’s cause, plus women naturally supporting the cause as it’s something they likely worry about in their own lives. The same does not happen in reverse for various societal reasons.
This might need to be covered in a later column, but mammograms expose women to radiation. There is some evidence that, in women at “low risk” for breast-cancer, exposure to multiple mammograms increases their risk for developing cancer more than it increases the likelihood of finding early (and presumably more treatable) breast cancer. And no one is promoting “early” mammograms; maybe for the same reason. Some in the medical field even discourage breast self-exam, saying that it leads to women finding more benign lumps, causing more unnecessary interventions. This is controversial, though.
Other than giving us an outlet to remember and memorialize those who had or have breast cancer, what does “increased awareness” contribute? As Cecil said, we know little about real risks, effective prevention or diagnosis and there hasn’t been much innovation in the way of treatment. At least for the billions and billions that have been raised.
(Not just “sexiness”… I think breasts are also connected with motherhood and nurturing, which is why it is less controversial to support this cause for many organizations and politicians. Also,BC is not apparently caused by “bad behavior” as some feel that HIV, lung cancer and some other diseases are.)
You wouldn’t believe it by reader Cecil’s answer but breast cancer is one of the few cancers where treatment has really changed in recent years - for the better.
More women are having lumpectomy rather than full mastectomy which results in a much better sense of well being for the woman with minimal increase in risk of recurrence.
Sentinal lymphnode biopsy means that many women do not need full axillary (armpit) lymphnode clearance with much less chornic lymphoedema post surgery.
Radiation therapy is being used more sparingly with more focused beams to reduce collateral damage to the heart and lungs.
Chemotherapy may be using old drugs but they have extensively tested and the optimum regimen for risk vs benefit is now established.
Knowledge of oestorgen modulating medication has meant we now have several treatment options to choose from - ovarian resection, tamoxifen or GnRH antagonist.
The latest advance is knowledge of HER-2 overexperssion leading to the entirely new adjuvant treatment of Herceptin with great improvemtns with few side effects.
We know about high risk breast cancer genes (BRCA1 and 2) which have given women who inherit these gene to have prophylactic surgery.
To say that little has changed in the last 20 years is a complete falsehood.
Do you think all this work and more comes for free??
Plus for all our medical knowledge, we’ve only ever completely eliminated one disease - smallpox. That’s it. Everything else that we think is gone is really just minimized, or only present in ‘third world’ countries. So no, it’s not surprising that we don’t have a miracle cure for breast cancer yet.
Prostate cancer is not directly comparable to breast cancer, and not only because assholes are less attractive than ta-tas.
Most varieties of prostate cancer are slow-growing. At a certain age, if they diagnose you with prostate cancer, they may well leave it alone, as various other things (including age) are likely to finish you off long before the cancer would. Most varieties of breast cancer, on the other hand, will kill you quite quickly if left untreated.
I’m thinking the right kind of campaign could help other cancers get some of the media attention that breast cancer has received. For example, how could one go wrong with:
By the way, you can buy crap for pretty much any cancer out there, a lot of cancers have their own fundraising efforts/marches/awareness campaigns. Breast cancer has just done the best job and/or has the most people interested. Which is sort of a chicken/egg question. People whose lives aren’t touched by cancer don’t go out picking one to support. But then if you have been touched by colorectal cancer and there is no local events…
Thanks for the updated info., Drj55. Interesting and useful.
But are you saying that these innovations come without hefty profits in some cases?
Some points that Cecil made were that pink ribbon breast cancer fundraising campaigns are not coordinated and that some marketing promotions aren’t really raising money at all, but are misleading and mostly providing profit for the products that claim to be supporting research.
I find it annoying that the focus on breast cancer is relentlessly on early detection, not prevention. Early detection is NOT prevention.
And as for cure rates, let’s not forget that the medical profession claims a “cure” after five years. The last time I spoke with a radiologist about this, he freely acknowledged that women are now dying after 7 or 8 years with the disease instead of 3 or 4. Now, this is not nothing–especially for younger women with young children. But it is NOT a cure. And it comes at great cost to the patient in terms of treatment-induced suffering.
And how much of this life extension merely reflects the fact the cancer is diagnosed earlier than it used to be? That gives you an extra year or so right there. A year in which you can be terrified as you watch toxic drugs drip into your arm instead of enjoying life while you still feel good.
Oncologists, by the way, are the ONLY doctors allowed to make a profit on the drugs they sell to their patients. This really has to be colouring their decision making, not necessarily consciously, but that profit is built right into their business plan so how could it not be a factor?
In comparison, one out every eight women will have breast cancer. The chances of survival are so much better than they used to be. I can’t think of anyone who deserves monitary reward more than those who literally save lives.
What percentage of men will die from prostate cancer? What is the death rate from this disease? Did anyone advocate that we shouldn’t fund other kinds of cancer?
Breasts are more than just “tatas.” They are a very vulnerable part of the human anatomy. Even men have breast cancer.