• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Democracy Chronicles

Towards better democracy everywhere.

  • AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
  • WORLD DEMOCRACY
  • POLITICAL ART
  • more
    • election technology
    • money politics
    • political dissidents
    • THIRD PARTY
      • third party central
      • green party
      • justice party
      • libertarian party
    • voting methods
  • DC INFO
    • author central
    • about
    • advertise with DC
    • contact
    • privacy policy
You are here: Home / DC Authors / Breast Cancer Awareness Month: Questioning Testing Guidelines

Breast Cancer Awareness Month: Questioning Testing Guidelines

October 23, 2017 by Joan Krickellas Leave a Comment

FacebookLinkedInPinTweet
image link

As scientific and medical advances have rapidly progressed over the past century, life-saving knowledge has been brought to humanity, but controversies have been brought on, too. Important questions addressing ethics and financial issues have arisen amidst attempts to provide often expensive and complicated diagnostic and therapeutic technology to people the world over. While we tend to think altruistically about the benefits to society from the development and availability of tests that will, for instance, help determine the risk of getting a certain cancer in the future or find a cancer in its early stages, there is money, big money, involved. And that is inherently intertwined in much of the “medical” decision-making that sets standards and guidelines the medical community abides by. Who makes the decisions that establish the standards of medical care and the guidelines for a variety of medical testing is a fascinating question. And, it’s complicated because human lives and millions of dollars are at stake.

One expensive and complicated medical technology that has emerged over the past 20 years is genetic sequencing and testing—the ability to sequence the human genome and detect now known deleterious mutations that put a cancer-affected individual at a risk for another cancer or an unaffected person at risk for a particular cancer in the future. Myriad, a molecular diagnostic company, focused this technology on the BRCA genes, which are DNA-repair genes.

Mutations in either of these genes puts a woman at a cumulative lifetime risk of ~40-85% of developing breast cancer, and 16-40% of developing ovarian cancer, compared with the 12.7% and 1.4% lifetime risk for the general population of developing breast or ovarian cancer, respectively. The best DNA testing for health risk can show information about breast cancer genes now so the science of early detection is getting better and better. Myriad isolated and sequenced the genes, obtained patent applications for the sequencing technology, and gained sole control over the testing for these genetic mutations. Given Myriad’s control over testing for BRCA mutations, the question of how it would decided as to who should be genetically tested became a controversial issue. Should Myriad itself decide, given the extensive genetic information it had at its disposal? Should it be a consensus decision among various independent medical/public health organizations?

Historically, important public health decisions have been made by consensus of various large medical organizations. In the case of genetic testing, the American Cancer Society, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), and the American Medical Association (AMA) convened to set guidelines for risk assessment and genetic testing. However, in this unique case where a private company had most of the information needed to set guidelines, it developed its own guidelines. But, did it make sense to leave the determination of such expensive testing in the hands of a company that stood to singularly gain financially from the testing?

Myriad lost its exclusive patent in 2013 when the Supreme Court ruled that human genes could no longer be patented. The company, however, still continues to maintain dominance in the genetic sequencing business by being allowed to exclusively withhold 20 years worth of genetic data on the BRCA, and not have to share them with the scientific community. Myriad has not disclosed statistical information that might be helpful to other laboratories, such as data on mutational variants of unknown significance (VUS), whose impacts are still unclear, but are being worked on by other geneticists.

Furthermore, this withholding of information makes Myriad’s analyses of BRCA mutations closed to clinical peer review, and thus patients are expected to take Myriad’s conclusions on faith. Myriad’s test though should be looked by patients with a grain of salt—it does not always detect large-scale rearrangements of the genes, and sometimes produces indeterminate or false results that can be damaging to patients’ psyches, especially for those who tested negative and later develop breast cancer. The test should be reviewed by other groups to help develop more comprehensive tests that patients can better trust.

Contrary to the recent advent of genetic testing, there has been diagnostic screening tool around for 40 years that can detect breast cancer at its early stage—the mammogram. Similar to the question of who should be genetically tested, there is the central question of when a woman should be screened. The question of whether women under 50 should be screened has remained controversial since the 1970s.

Data from the only major widespread randomized trial on mammography screening, conducted by the Health Insurance Plan (HIP) of New York, in 1963, did not demonstrated a benefit for women aged 40-49 (or even women aged 60-69 for that matter). In this study, participants began having mammograms in their late 40s, continuing to have them after they turned 50; as a result, it has remained unclear as to whether those women that were diagnosed with breast cancer were younger or older than 50 at the time.

Nevertheless, even without scientific evidence of statistically significant benefits for women aged 40-49, the American College of Radiology (ACR) and American Cancer Society (ACS) have always staunchly recommended routine annual mammograms during these years, rather than waiting to begin at age 50. Conversely, groups like the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) seeing that screening was not proven effective for those 40-49, considered screening during those years as ineffective. They also noted that ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) diagnoses were highest in the 40-49 age group, and argued that over half of the time these cases are “harmless,” and if left alone, would not progress to advanced stage breast cancer.

However, because doctors cannot tell if the DCIS is harmful, it is treated like invasive breast cancer, usually with surgical excision by lumpectomy, with or without radiation therapy, or even a mastectomy, which can cause extreme, and perhaps unnecessary anxiety in patients. Among these groups, the ACR, ACS, NCI, and USPSTF, who should have the final word on setting the screening age guidelines? Unless a randomized study is conducted for women aged 40-49, I do not think any of these groups can make the ultimate decision. There is currently not enough statistical evidence on when breast cancer rates significantly increase, and without this information, guidelines on the threshold age of screening initiation cannot be set.

Both BRCA genetic testing and mammography have the ability to create unneeded anxiety, whether it be because of a false positive, or in the case of mammography, the detection of noninvasive cancer that could have may no impact on a woman’s life if left undetected. However, both tests also allow for early detection that can save countless numbers of lives.

Ideally, patients should engage in an open dialogue with their doctors over the benefits, risks, and limitations of these tests, as well as their individual risks of breast cancer so that they can decide on what is best for themselves. This is a decision that should not be left in the hands of potentially financially motivated medical companies.

Sources

  • Gold, E.R., and Julia Carbone. “Myriad Genetics: In the eye of the policy storm.” Genetics in Medicine 12 (2010): S39-S69.
  • Levy, Sharon. “Our Shared Code: The Myriad Decision and the Future of Genetic Research.” Environmental Health Perspectives (121): A250-A253.
  • Reynolds, Handel. “The Big Squeeze, A Social and Political History of the Controversial” Mammogram. New York: Cornell University Press, 2012.
FacebookLinkedInPinTweet

Filed Under: DC Authors Tagged With: Women and Democracy

Some highlighted Democracy Chronicles topics

Africa American Corruption American Local Elections American State Elections Asia Capitalism and Big Business Celebrity Politics China Democracy Charity Democracy Protests Democrats Dictatorships Education Election History Election Methods Election Security Election Transparency Europe Internet and Democracy Journalism and Free Speech Middle East Minority Voting Rights Money Politics New York City and State Elections Political Artwork Political Dissidents Political Lobbying Redistricting Republicans Russia Socialism and Labor Social Media and Democracy South America Spying and Privacy Supreme Court Third Party Voter Access Voter ID Voter Registration Voter Suppression Voter Turnout Voting Technology Women Voting Rights Worldwide Worldwide Corruption

About Joan Krickellas

Joan Krickellas is a student at Vassar College majoring in environmental studies, with particular emphasis in biology and women’s studies. Social issues she finds to be of particular interest include those that pertain to human rights, migration/immigration, discrimination, and climate change. She firmly believes that everyone should have the right to voice their opinions. Democracy Chronicles is where she feels comfortable in voicing her own.

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

democracy chronicles newsletter

democracy around the web

  • Belarus opens criminal cases against more tha...
    Source: Committee to Protect Journalists Published on: 59 minutes ago
  • “Disputed North Carolina race offers playbook...
    Source: Election Law Blog Published on: 1 hour ago
  • Taliban intelligence detain journalist Sulaim...
    Source: Committee to Protect Journalists Published on: 1 hour ago
  • “Auction to Dine With Trump Creates Foreign I...
    Source: Election Law Blog Published on: 1 hour ago
  • Who Wins or Loses in Louisiana if the Supreme...
    Source: Election Law Blog Published on: 3 hours ago