Big news in women’s health this week. Good news? Depends on how you see it.
The NYTimes reports that surgery for early stage not-quite breast cancer is pretty much useless. Not shocking since NCI decided that DCIS shouldn’t even be called “cancer.”
They say, for instance, that some premalignant conditions, like one that affects the breast called ductal carcinoma in situ, which many doctors agree is not cancer, should be renamed to exclude the word carcinoma so that patients are less frightened and less likely to seek what may be unneeded and potentially harmful treatments that can include the surgical removal of the breast.
Here’s what the editorial on the JAMA study says:
The original goal of mammographic screening was to identify invasive cancers at the earliest stage, because of the superior prognosis of stage I cancers. Prior to the advent of screening, ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) made up approximately 3% of breast cancers detected. As we pushed to find smaller and smaller cancers, and targeted calcifications instead of just masses, we began to identify DCIS more frequently. Now DCIS accounts for approximately 20% to 25% of screen-detected breast cancers. The cells that make up DCIS look like invasive cancer both pathologically and molecularly, and therefore the presumption was made that these lesions were the precursors of cancer and that early removal and treatment would reduce cancer incidence and mortality. However, long-term epidemiology studies have demonstrated that the removal of 50 000 to 60 000 DCIS lesions annually has not been accompanied by a reduction in the incidence of invasive breast cancers.1 This is in contrast to the experience with removal of colonic polyps and intraepithelial neoplasia lesions of the cervix, in which the removal of precursor lesions has led to a decrease in the incidence of colon and cervical cancer, respectively.2 We now know that breast cancer encompasses a range of behaviors, from aggressive to indolent; the latter are more likely to surface with screening.3 The analysis of Narod et al4 fuels a growing concern that we should rethink our strategy for the detection and treatment of DCIS.
In this video from Dana Farber, Dr. Eric Winer says doctors need to be clear with patients about the reality of DCIS. “What this is all about is conversations between doctors and patients.” Still, he describes surgery as the standard of care. Will that change? Despite evidence the lumpectomy is as effective as mastectomy, many women still choose the latter.
Also, the FDA approved so called “female viagra” Here’s the benefit: women taking flibanserin reported between 0.5 and one more sexually satisfying event per month, compared with women taking a placebo.
Here’s what Boston-based OBOS had to via a guest post on an FDA hearing.earlier this summer.
Liz Canner, a filmmaker who produced the documentary, “Orgasm, Inc.,” which examines the search for a female sexual enhancement drug, said the company had “deceived women into taking a drug that doesn’t work better than drinking a glass of wine or two, and could end up killing us.”
“To approve this drug would set the worst kind of precedent: that companies that spend enough money can force the FDA to approve useless and dangerous drugs,” said Dr. Adriane Fugh-Berman of Georgetown University.
More than 30 of those who testified — including health-care providers and a number of women who had participated in the trials — urged the panel to support the drug. One provider stood at the microphone in awkward silence to illustrate how little she has to offer her patients with low sexual desire.
“I want to want my husband, it is that simple,” Amanda Parrish, a mother of four from Nashville, told the panel. “For us, flibanserin is a relationship-saving and life-changing drug.”
Here’s another POV from North Shore psychology blogger Dr. Daniel Carlat;
Flibanserin (brand name Addyi) has just received a controversial and complicated FDA approval for the treatment of low sex drive in women. There’s a lot of outrage in the blogosphere, much of it centered on the lobbying of the FDA by disease advocacy groups. I agree that this politicization of what should be a scientific process is embarrassing to both Sprout and its supporters. Nonetheless, I’m not nearly as hard on flibanserin as some of my colleagues.
However, the does agree with this statement:
Adriane Fugh Berman said it best as quoted by the New York Times: Flibanserin is a “mediocre aphrodisiac with scary side effects.”