Curtis,
I'll be happy to agree to disagree and drop it, but not until after I correct a misquote.
You quoted me as saying "there is no reason for oncologists to follow a woman with a possible malignancy (before OR after treatment) more aggressively with imaging than an asymptomatic gal." I never said that, nor anything which could be construed that way.
I was talking specifically about those with cancer (which I believe is how you started this discussion) and specifically about CTI. I do not dispute that oncologists might follow a woman with breast cancer more aggressively with mammography, but even then, they are looking for new lesions, not following to see how a cancerous lesion might respond to treatment, which I believe was your initial contention - unless you have a reference to indicate that breast cancer is now being treated without surgical removal as the primary form of treatment. Perhaps it is, and I'm just behind the times, and would appreciate being updated. But if surgery is still the primary form of treatment, then I stand by my statement that repeated use of CTI after the cancer is removed, in a "monitoring" mode, is completely unproven. CTI is only being tested as an adjunct to mammography, as we have discussed many times, and will not replace it as the primary screening mechanism for some time to come. There is currently a 15-center, 3 year trial, sponsored by the NIH underway looking at MRI as an alternative to mammography; it will take a study of a similar magnitude for CTI to gain acceptance as an alternative. There may be some renegades out there who would use CTI rather than mammography to monitor women with breast cancer, but I would be extraordinarily surprised if the company, their colleagues, or the medical community as a whole would support that practice, and I think you're wrong to suggest that it has merit until the appropriate studies are done.
Bob |
