Breast cancer is the second most common cancer among women. As with men, the most common is skin cancer. Over 40,000 women will die from breast cancer this year and that represents a steady decrease in the number of breast cancer deaths since 1990.
Some important statistics concerning breast cancer are that 1 in 8 women will develop breast cancer during their life time. In 2007, between invasive and non invasive (in situ) breast cancer, there will be about 240,000 new cases diagnosed.
The downturn in the number of women diagnosed and dying from breast cancer appears to be a result of more aggressive screening, education and treatment. I know that back when my aunt was diagnosed with breast cancer, regular screening was pretty much unheard of. She beat the odds back then, after having a mastectomy, by surviving to age 80 or so. At that time she succumbed to the number one cancer cause of death in women, lung cancer.
These statistics are the very thing that has life insurance underwriters rethinking old guidelines. What is happening is that breast cancer is being caught at earlier stages and treatment is more successful. Survival rates at early stages is exceptional. In situ breast cancer will generally have a survival rate of 90-100%.
Where breast cancer used to mean an automatic decline from most insurance companies, depending on the stage and grade of the cancer, and how far out you are from the last treatment, better than standard rates are definitely not out of picture.
Bottom line. Proactive!!! Regular screening, self exams and education about risk factors are all helping to cut down on the number of women who die from breast cancer.
September 25th, 2007
In a few previous posts I had discussed the heart imaging test called an Ultra Fast CT scan. Touted by those who own the machines as the best early warning device for coronary artery disease, the machines and the tests have also had a multitude of critics due to the number of false positive results.
The test is supposed to take a snapshot of the heart and it’s arteries, ultra fast, so that the heart muscle in motion can be stopped. It’s purported strong point is that it can show plaque buildup. Absent this snapshot, blockage would have to be detected by thallium stress tests or stress echocardiograms.
The big selling point of the ultra fast ct scan is that it can show blockage without an invasive procedure. Unfortunately, the only way to conclusively determine if there is blockage and how much, is to do a backup angiogram and actually look inside. The real unfortunate outcome is that the ct scan has been incorrect in about 50% of cases, making the invasive procedure a waste of time.
I recently had a client who was practically pronounced dead on his ultra fast ct scan. He ranked in the 97th percentile for chances of having a blockage induced heart attack. He had a backup thallium stress test that showed no blockage or abnormalites, so the cardiologist did not recommend an angiogram. The first life insurance company we took it to waffled a bit, but came back with a borderline acceptable offer. We shopped it further and today hit a home run, with the company throwing out the ultra fast ct scan as irrelevant in the presence of a perfect thallium stress test.
Bottom line. There are people criss-crossing the country selling ultra fast ct scans at $400 a pop. If you choose to spend that money and get bad results, get a back up stress test from an actual cardiologist. If you get good results but have some reason for concern such as family history, or having risk factors for heart disease such as high cholesterol, diabetes or obesity, see a cardiologist anyway.
September 25th, 2007
