<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>

<channel>
	<title> &#187; breast cancer</title>
	<atom:link href="http://medicalconsumers.org/tag/breast-cancer/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://medicalconsumers.org</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 21:23:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
<cloud domain='medicalconsumers.org' port='80' path='/?rsscloud=notify' registerProcedure='' protocol='http-post' />

	<atom:link rel="search" type="application/opensearchdescription+xml" href="http://medicalconsumers.org/osd.xml" title="" />
	<atom:link rel='hub' href='http://medicalconsumers.org/?pushpress=hub'/>
		<item>
		<title>Breast cancer deaths drop&#8212;but not because of mammography</title>
		<link>http://medicalconsumers.org/2011/11/25/breast-cancer-deaths-drop-no-thanks-to-mammography/</link>
		<comments>http://medicalconsumers.org/2011/11/25/breast-cancer-deaths-drop-no-thanks-to-mammography/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Nov 2011 17:19:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>medconsumers</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[breast cancer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cancer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Screening]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[testing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Women's Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[breast cancer death rate decrease]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[breast cancer survivors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ductal carcinoma in situ]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ductal carcinoma in situ overtreated]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[improvements in breast cancer treatment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mammgraphy overrated]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mammography harms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mammography more harm than good]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mammography screening harms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tamoxifen benefit]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://medicalconsumers.org/?p=8957</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Mammography screening is usually credited with the drop in breast cancer deaths recorded in many countries, including the U.S.  But a case is building for improvements in breast cancer treatment as the most likely cause. The decrease in deaths shows up in many European countries that did not start  mammography screening until the early 1990s, which coincides with greater use of long-term adjuvant therapy (e.g., tamoxifen, chemotherapy) given after the initial treatment is over. What’s most surprising is the breast cancer death rate in some of these countries shows the greatest decrease among young women (under 50), who did not undergo mammography screening.<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=medicalconsumers.org&amp;blog=7088906&amp;post=8957&amp;subd=medconsumers&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://medicalconsumers.org/2011/11/25/breast-cancer-deaths-drop-no-thanks-to-mammography/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Maryann</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Cancer screening tests right to the grave</title>
		<link>http://medicalconsumers.org/2010/10/13/cancer-screening-right-to-the-grave/</link>
		<comments>http://medicalconsumers.org/2010/10/13/cancer-screening-right-to-the-grave/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Oct 2010 01:03:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>medconsumers</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[breast cancer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cancer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Doctors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drug ads]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Screening]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[testing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Women's Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[end of life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[inappropriate testing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prostate cancer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PSA test]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://medicalconsumers.org/?p=6473</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The tests most commonly given to advanced cancer patients were predicable. Mammography was number one, received by nearly 9% of the women with advanced cancer, with the Pap test running a close second at nearly 6%. As for the men, 15 % got a PSA test and nearly 2% of all got a colonoscopy. As for the age-matched people without cancer in the control group, 2-3 times more of them had one of the cancer screening tests.<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=medicalconsumers.org&amp;blog=7088906&amp;post=6473&amp;subd=medconsumers&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://medicalconsumers.org/2010/10/13/cancer-screening-right-to-the-grave/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Maryann</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Improved treatment trumps mammography</title>
		<link>http://medicalconsumers.org/2010/09/24/improved-treatment-trumps-mammography/</link>
		<comments>http://medicalconsumers.org/2010/09/24/improved-treatment-trumps-mammography/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Sep 2010 20:19:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>medconsumers</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[breast cancer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cancer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hospitals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Screening]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[breast cancer death rate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[breast cancer screening Norway]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[improved breast cancer care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mammography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mammography screening]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://medicalconsumers.org/?p=6350</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This study gives us another thing to think about---Is mammography screening a good use of limited financial resources? This is a technology that causes a high rate of false-alarm biopsies and unnecessary treatment of healthy women with breast cancers that would never progress had they been left undetected. With such a small lifesaving benefit in return, mammography screening may have already crowded out other, more promising ways to lower the breast cancer death rate.<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=medicalconsumers.org&amp;blog=7088906&amp;post=6350&amp;subd=medconsumers&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://medicalconsumers.org/2010/09/24/improved-treatment-trumps-mammography/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Maryann</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Breast biopsy: One type is much safer</title>
		<link>http://medicalconsumers.org/2010/01/22/breast-biopsy-one-type-is-much-safer/</link>
		<comments>http://medicalconsumers.org/2010/01/22/breast-biopsy-one-type-is-much-safer/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:25:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>medconsumers</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[breast cancer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cancer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[surgery]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Women's Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[breast biopsy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[complications]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://medicalconsumers.org/2010/01/25/breast-biopsy-techniques-which-is-best/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When a woman needs a biopsy to determine whether a breast abnormality is benign or malignant, she is usually directed to one of two procedures. Which one is best in terms of accuracy and complications is unlikely to be discussed during the usual doctor/patient encounter. It is, however, the subject of a new review that [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=medicalconsumers.org&amp;blog=7088906&amp;post=4364&amp;subd=medconsumers&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://medicalconsumers.org/2010/01/22/breast-biopsy-one-type-is-much-safer/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Maryann</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mammogram uproar</title>
		<link>http://medicalconsumers.org/2009/11/18/latest-mammogram-uproar/</link>
		<comments>http://medicalconsumers.org/2009/11/18/latest-mammogram-uproar/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:05:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>medconsumers</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cancer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Screening]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Women's Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[breast cancer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cancer regression]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mammography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mammography risks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[overdiagnosis and mammograms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[screening guidelines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spontaneous regression cancer]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://medicalconsumers.org/?p=3318</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When a technology’s lifesaving benefit has been oversold to the public for over three decades—and the harms downplayed—any cutback in recommendations will be met with a firestorm of anger. That exactly what happened yesterday when a highly respected organizations recently broke ranks with others that issue screening guidelines.<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=medicalconsumers.org&amp;blog=7088906&amp;post=3318&amp;subd=medconsumers&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://medicalconsumers.org/2009/11/18/latest-mammogram-uproar/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>17</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Maryann</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
