Friday, May 19, 2017

Those Nasty Complications

I often wonder in cancer treatment, which is worse - treatment or complications? I think complications win that one. To me complications mean more doctor visits, more drugs, more expense, more whininess, and less happy results.

In recent years, we have had the whats-her-name effect (this is what happens when you blog too early in the day) where women are getting bilateral and unilateral mastectomies at higher rates than in the past. There is no real proof that mastectomies are better than lumpectomies with radiation for early stage breast cancer but many women opt for them anyway.

But there is a problem. New research (because we always need new research) shows that more often mastectomies are often accompanied by side effects and complications.

"Researchers identified 105,211 women with early breast cancer diagnosed between 2000 and 2011 and identified treatment complications within 24 months of diagnosis and compared complications by treatment. ...

"Lumpectomy plus whole breast irradiation treatment was the most commonly used treatment. Mastectomy plus reconstruction was associated with nearly twice the complication risk of lumpectomy plus whole breast irradiation treatment (54.3% vs. 29.6% complication risk among younger women with private insurance and 66.1% vs. 37.6% complication risk among older women with Medicare) and was also associated with higher adjusted total cost (an average $22,481 more for younger women; an average $1,748 greater for older women with Medicare) and complication-related cost (an average $9,017 greater for the younger cohort; $2,092 greater for the Medicare cohort). Brachytherapy had modestly higher total cost and complications than whole breast irradiation treatment. Lumpectomy alone entailed lower cost and complications in the Medicare cohort only."


And what do side effects and complications mean? More doctor appointments, more treatment, and more costs. I don't know about you but honestly, in addition to better health, I am all for fewer doctor appointments, less treatment, and less cost.

If I could go to one doctor once a year and get treated for everything all at once, I would be much happier. But since that isn't going to happen, I still want the fewest visits possible. 

If I am given a choice of two treatment possibilities. One has less invasive surgery but would require additional treatment and the other has more invasive surgery but no additional treatment, but has a higher risk of more complications? I think I would always go for the less invasive ones that requires more treatment.

More complicated is never better.

(Whats-her-name is Angelina Jolie. I think I finally woke up.)

No comments: