The Risky Subject in the Risky Body: On BRCA Mutations and DCIS

Peggy Orenstein’s new article “When Cancer Is Not Cancer” tackles the dicey subject of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS).

Orenstein visits UC-San Francisco oncology professor, Dr. Laura Esserman. She describes Esserman’s office as decorated with quotes that amount to “When you challenge people’s deeply held beliefs, well, haters gonna hate.” Considering I recently told Cancer Curmudgeon and Get Up Swinging that we should make t-shirts that say Cancer Haters Gonna HATE, you won’t be surprised to hear that Esserman is a scientist after mine own heart.

At issue here is overdiagnosis, a problem in American medicine in general and in breast cancer oncology in particular. Most people tend to think of cancer as something you either have or you don’t have, when in fact cancer is more like a spectrum. Multiple stages stand between a healthy breast and deadly invasive metastatic cancer, including hyperplasia, hyperplasia with atypia, and DCIS.

DCISrange

Orenstein’s article is worth quoting at length.

“Esserman has focused on ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), an overgrowth of cells in the milk ducts. DCIS was rare before universal screening. It now accounts for 30 percent of breast cancers — nearly 65,000 cases a year. With its near 100 percent cure rate, DCIS would seem like a triumph of early detection. Except for this: In 50 to 90 percent of cases (estimates vary widely), it will stay where it is — “in situ” means “in place.” It lacks the capacity to spread, so by definition, it will never become life threatening. Yet because there has been no way to predict which cases might morph into invasive cancer, all are treated as potentially lethal. By 2020, 1 million women will likely be living with a DCIS diagnosis. If, conservatively, half are harmless, that means hundreds of thousands of women will have been overtreated, enduring the physical risks and psychological devastation of any cancer patient.”

Certainly, average women are being overdiagnosed with breast cancer and this is not likely to change any time soon. Quite frankly, the cancer industry makes a lot of money by putting women through needless surgery and treatment. Not coincidentally, women have been trained to remain hyper-vigilant about early detection, despite the fact that early detection doesn’t work. As Orenstein and Esserman discuss, if early detection actually saved lives, then the increasing diagnosis of DCIS (AKA “stage 0 breast cancer”) would dramatically improve survival rates. That hasn’t happened.

Together early detection (the pinkwashed cult of mammography, self breast exams, etc.) and overdiagnosis have dramatically extended the “breast cancer continuum” that Maren Klawiter discusses in The Biopolitics of Breast Cancer:

“The movement of the mammographic gaze into asymptomatic populations transformed a relatively clear either-or distinction into a more fluid, fuzzily bounded, and ambiguous breast cancer continuum. Instead of the temporary, either-or sick role of the earlier regime, the regime of biomedicalization created the ‘risk role’ for its new subjects–a role that required that the regime’s risky subjects take up permanent residence along the breast cancer continuum” (86).

I named my blog the risky body long before I read Klawiter’s book, because I wanted to highlight the way that genetic testing turns subjects into objects–in other words, how deleterious BRCA+ results turn women into mere bodies defined by incalculable risk. Thus the headless woman in my blog header. So you can imagine how excited I was when I read Klawiter’s chapter about “risky subjects.” She describes how the medical industry has radically expanded the breast cancer community to include asymptomatic women through proliferating screening methods and pinkwashed discourses, thereby “reconstitut[ing] adult women as risky subjects” (85). My excitement about Klawiter’s work can most accurately be rendered thusly:  !!!! OMG YES ^THIS !!!!

It’s clear that overdiagnosis is a massive problem fueled by capitalist interests invested in a cancer industry that turns nearly all adult women into risky subjects in need of constant cancer screening and/or treatment, regardless of whether or not such actions actually improve women’s health and wellbeing. We need more critiques like Klawiter’s, Samantha King’s, and Gayle Sulik’s to help average women understand–and hopefully resist–the medical ideologies they are being subjected to.

But what does all overdiagnosis mean for BRCA+ and other HBOC women?

Obviously, the discovery of BRCA1 radically expanded the breast cancer continuum in the early 1990s, and, in some ways, HBOC women became the ultimate risky subjects. If DCIS is an un-cancer, then so are BRCA mutations. By this I mean that neither DCIS nor BRCA mutations are cancer until suddenly some day for some women (who we can’t single out in advance) they do in fact become cancer.

How many women are subjected to antiquated, ineffectual, expensive, time-consuming, and stressful screening methods to find those women who will actually develop breast cancer? Sure, we know BRCA+ women are far more likely than an average woman to develop cancer. However, screening alone isn’t prevention. It does save some lives, but not nearly as many as you’d hope it would. Is it any wonder so many BRCA+ women drop surveillance entirely after a few years?

It’s a frustrating situation if you’re like me: a BRCA+ feminist who wants to resist pinkwashed capitalist medical ideologies (if that’s you, then CALL ME MAYBE (or maybe just tweet me @theriskybody maybe because calling would be rather creepy)). I don’t want to be a dupe of pinkwashers and the cancer industry. I want solid scientifically proven methods for preventing, detecting, and treating breast and ovarian cancer. There ought to be a better way of handling things, but right now there isn’t.

While I know screening methods for breast and ovarian cancer are woefully ineffective for both average and HBOC women, I still feel viscerally compelled to be a “responsible patient” by submitting to rigorous screening several times a year. I struggle against being a risky subject in a risky body, however subjectively and genetically inevitable that may be. Honestly, BRCA+ ideological and practical clusterfucks like this made prophylactic mastectomy a no brainer for me.

[P.S. An incomplete draft of this post was accidentally published last week, and when I took it down I lost the great comment someone had posted–sorry about that!]

Advertisements

Women Offered Bribes to Have Pap Tests: Guest Post

Amazing post on insurance company efforts to make women get unnecessary pelvic exams, in this case Pap smears.

forwomenseyesonly

Screen Shot 2014-09-09 at 7 25 24 PMThis is a guest post written by a valued contributor to this blog, who wishes to remain anonymous:

I have this health plan. My doctor was very nice when I told her that I did not want a Pap or pelvic exam, and she hasn’t hassled me about it. The health care plan, on the other hand, seems perturbed that I haven’t toed the line and agreed to have a Pap. A few weeks ago I received this “invitation” in the mail. It offers a bribe of a $50 Target gift card if I go for a Pap before the end of 2014.

I think it is VERY important to note, at this point, that TARGET HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS. They are NOT sponsoring this, donating the gift cards or participating in this ruse in any direct way. The bribe just happens to be a gift card from…

View original post 776 more words

Pelvic exams are pointless, like everything else.

Lisa SimpsonThree things we already knew:

1. Ovarian cancer screening doesn’t work. CA-125 tests and transvaginal ultrasounds rarely detect cancer before stage IV. In fact, at the Joining Forces conference, Dr. Noah Kauff showed a disturbing slide demonstrating women who are screened for ovarian cancer actually have higher mortality rates than women who are not screened. (Seriously, that slide was horrifying)

2. Self-breast exams don’t work. They do not detect cancer early, because by the time a tumor is palpable it has already been growing for many years. Women who do self-breast exams regularly do not have better survival rates than women who don’t do them, but they do have more biopsies, mammograms, MRIs, doctors appointments, false alarms, and anxiety.

3. Mammography doesn’t work, at least for women under the age of 50. It doesn’t detect cancer early as promised, even if you buy into the myth of early detection (which you shouldn’t). In fact, breast cancers typically grow 6-8 years before they’re detected by a mammogram. Younger women–that is, premenopausal women–have more dense breast tissue that hides tumors on mammography film. And again, it has repeatedly been shown that mammograms do not save lives, but they do lead to more biopsies, false alarms, and over-diagnosis of DCIS.

Now here’s a fun new fact: pelvic exams don’t work either.

Recently, the American College of Physicians (ACP) put out new guidelines that recommended “against performing screening pelvic examination in asymptomatic, nonpregnant, adult women”:

“Pelvic examination is commonly used in asymptomatic, nonpregnant, adult women to screen for pathology. Evidence shows that the diagnostic accuracy of pelvic examination for detecting ovarian cancer or bacterial vaginosis is low. The PLCO trial and cohort studies suggest that the screening pelvic examination rarely detects noncervical cancer or other treatable conditions and was not associated with improved health outcomes. The PLCO trial found no reduction of ovarian cancer mortality rates by screening with pelvic examination or by screening with CA-125 or transvaginal ultrasonography, both of which are more sensitive for detecting ovarian cancer than the pelvic examination itself. Thus, there is indirect evidence that pelvic examination (as distinct from cervical cancer screening) in asymptomatic, adult women does not reduce morbidity or mortality rates. No studies were identified that addressed the diagnostic accuracy of the pelvic examination for other gynecologic conditions, such as asymptomatic pelvic inflammatory disease, benign conditions, or gynecologic cancer other than cervical or ovarian cancer. Many false-positive findings are associated with pelvic examination, with attendant psychological and physical harms, as well as harms associated with the examination itself. Harms of pelvic examination include unnecessary laparoscopies or laparotomies, fear, anxiety, embarrassment, pain, and discomfort. Women with a history of sexual violence, and particularly those with PTSD, may experience more pain, discomfort, fear, anxiety, or embarrassment during pelvic examination.”

Pelvic exams do more harm than good. They lead to false positives. They traumatize women who are survivors of sexual violence, as 1 in 5 American women are and 1 in 4 female college students are. They’re humiliating and sometimes painful. Women who fear or dislike them (and who doesn’t dislike them?) may avoid going to the doctor to avoid a pelvic exam. Most importantly, pelvic exams do a poor job of detecting gynecological diseases and do not lead to lower mortality rates from gynecological cancers. In short, pelvic exams are a waste of time, money, and emotional energy.

I’ve already seen some women express disapproval of the new ACP recommendations, just as many women expressed disapproval over the new guidelines that came out a few years ago that recommended against mammograms for women under the age of 50. It seems many women are accustomed to certain protocols and find them reassuring. But women’s healthcare should not be based on supplying false reassurance.

Some women, like Amy Robach in this interview, vehemently argue that a mammogram, self-breast exam, or pelvic exam found their cancer and saved their lives, despite scientific evidence that shows otherwise. So let’s be perfectly clear. Mammograms, self-breast exams, and pelvic exams do detect some cancers. However, detecting cancer and improving survival rates are not the same thing. So yes, an individual woman’s cancer may be found by these methods, but that doesn’t mean her odds of survival are any better than a woman whose cancer was detected later or by other methods.

[Warning: historical digression ahead. I have a point, I swear.]

In the early-to-mid-twentieth century, women who found suspicious lumps in their breasts were anesthetized for biopsies. If cancer was found, doctors immediately performed Halsted mastectomies without waking up their patients from anesthesia. In other words, women were not consulted about whether or not their bodies were going to be brutally disfigured when their breast cancer was treated–can you imagine what that must have been like?

In case you need a reminder of what Halsted mastectomies did to women’s bodies:

RadicalMastectomy

All this, despite decades of scientific evidence conclusively demonstrating that Halsted mastectomies were utterly unnecessary for the treatment of breast cancer and that women who underwent Halsted mastectomies actually had lower survival rates than women who had simple mastectomies or breast-conserving lumpectomies.

Why did doctors keep performing Halsted  mastectomies despite conclusive evidence that they were unnecessary and ineffectual? Because physicians simply preferred doing immediate Halsteds, no matter how detrimental they were to patient health and well being. Doctors believed, despite incontrovertible research otherwise, that radical surgeries saved lives–just as many women believe, despite incontrovertible research otherwise, that mammograms save lives.

In the 1970s and 1980s, feminist health activists fought long and hard to get surgeons and oncologists to base clinical decisions for female patients on well-designed scientific studies and randomized clinical trials. Breast cancer activist Rose Kushner spent hours in medical libraries exhaustively reading medical journals after she found a lump in her breast and devoted the rest of her life to scientifically driven women’s healthcare. And yes, Kushner was a feminist. (Check out Barron H. Lerner’s Breast Cancer Wars for more on this topic)

Ok, so here’s why I have indulged in this historical digression on immediate Halsted mastectomies and feminist activism:

It drives me absolutely crazy to see some women in the BRCA+ community dismissing overwhelming scientific evidence in favor of personal anecdotes. Activists like Kushner spent their lives fighting for women’s healthcare to be based on reputable research studies, rather than the personal preferences of male physicians and the patriarchal medical industry. This shift took decades. It was hard won. It improved the lives of countless breast cancer patients and their families. Show some respect.

The ACP recommendations against pelvic exams are based on 70 years of medical research, not anecdotes. Instead of denying the evidence that ovarian cancer screening, mammograms, self-breast exams, and pelvic exams are a waste of time, BRCA+women should be furious. After all, we’re subjected to ineffectual and scientifically unproven screening methods far more than average women. This puts us in an untenable position. We are at high risk for breast and ovarian cancer. We need to be screened for it often. Current screening methods for breast and ovarian cancer are lousy. What are we supposed to do?

I am so fucking sick of this shit–the constant appointments, the long waits, the anxiety, the endless copays, and the fights with insurance to make them pay for humiliating exams and testing. Cancer screening disrupts my life for months on end multiple times a year, and it pisses me off to find out it’s deeply flawed, if not downright ineffectual. I’m not a physician or a scientist. I don’t know what should take the place of antiquated screening methods, but I can read and interpret scientific studies. I understand when my time, money, and emotional labor is being wasted on bullshit protocols.

We need better screening for women’s cancers. If breast cancer history is any indication, then the first step to getting better healthcare for BRCA+ women is accepting that old methods don’t work and demanding better.

 

HBOC Threat Level Orange

Image

I may or may not have ovarian cancer. I’ve had a host of “whispering symptoms” for a while now that three different general practitioners have repeated misdiagnosed. Each time I reminded them that I was BRCA+ and asked if I should be screened for ovarian cancer. They waved it off. As is typical with ovarian cancer, these symptoms could very well turn out to be something else entirely. My doctors are rushing me into extra screening this week.

The timing is ironic. My usual twice annual screening was coming up soon anyway, so I already had appointments for a CA-125 test, ultrasound, and physical exam that have now been urgently condensed and sped up. I’m also preparing for my prophylactic mastectomy surgery later in the year. So the same day my doctor sits me down with a grim face to say it may be ovarian cancer, a bunch of supplies I ordered from Amazon appeared on my doorstep–shower chair, bed tray, wedge pillow, etc.

It’s a funny thing to be preparing for a surgery you may not be able to have because of more pressing medical issues. Part of me is mentally putting the mastectomy surgery on hold until I have answers about these symptoms. Part of me thinks the symptoms will turn out to be much ado about nothing and I should carry on with mastectomy plans. It’s hard to know what to do or how to occupy myself while I wait for answers.

I’ve been joking that this ovarian cancer scare has put my family and I on threat level orange, like the Homeland Security alerts. Hopefully, it will all turn out to be a false alarm. But one of the many frustrating things about having a BRCA mutation is that, in a way, you are always at threat level orange, not unlike Homeland Security terror levels after 9-11. If/when I’m told that I have “no detectable cancer” (which is as much as a high risk girl can possibly hope for), I’ll still be looking at decades of false alarms. Even if I have a prophylactic mastectomy with oopherectomy, salpingectomy, and hysterectomy, I will still be predisposed to other cancers. The best case scenario is a life of fear and threats with no actual diagnosis–a life of threat level orange.

This threat level system is really more my style