Wow, I'm really glad they caught it in time! That's a very scary situation.
Obviously I wouldn't change anything about the way this was handled. To be honest, my proposal is mostly a concession. It is an attempt to reduce the number of unnecessary tests and biopsies, while still gathering more data about the things that are going on in your body. It doesn't supersede anything that you've described, so if you feel a lump, you would still follow exactly the same course of action that you've outlined.
There must be a way to collect more data and respond appropriately to aggressive and dangerous cancers, while still reducing the number of unnecessary tests and biopsies. This is obviously a very important problem to solve and will save millions of lives.
Interesting debate btw. I think the correlation between high levels of testing as relates to early identification is a big contributor to trend of increasing survival rates (along with advancing treatment options of course).
Also important to note. MRIs are noninvasive. Biopsies, in BC cases, are fairly noninvasive. It’s typically just pulling out some cells with a needle, not to say it’s comfortable, but nothing to really fear either. So, I guess I just don’t see what the big deal is. Except it’s expensive. So, as is always the case with healthcare, the real debate should probably be about cost.
Obviously I wouldn't change anything about the way this was handled. To be honest, my proposal is mostly a concession. It is an attempt to reduce the number of unnecessary tests and biopsies, while still gathering more data about the things that are going on in your body. It doesn't supersede anything that you've described, so if you feel a lump, you would still follow exactly the same course of action that you've outlined.
There must be a way to collect more data and respond appropriately to aggressive and dangerous cancers, while still reducing the number of unnecessary tests and biopsies. This is obviously a very important problem to solve and will save millions of lives.