Shortened Radiation Treatment For Better Breast Cancer Results

Rayshell Clapper for redOrbit.com – Your Universe Online

Breast cancer is scary. Its prevalence certainly should make all women aware and active in preventing, catching it early, and taking an active role in treatment. And even though women should have a voice in their treatment, often they simply follow the guidelines set out by their doctors. Likely this is because breast cancer is scary enough, but it is also probably because they trust their doctors. Both of these are legitimate, but if breast cancer patients do not speak up, they could end up with unnecessary longer treatments. As the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine recently reported, about “two-thirds of the women treated for early-stage breast cancer in the US receive longer radiation therapy than necessary.”

The University of Pennsylvania research team consisted of Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel, MD, PhD, and Dr. Justin E. Bekelman, MD. USA Today states that their study further supports four other studies that support the fact that many women receive too much radiation. Emanuel and Bekelman found that after a lumpectomy (otherwise known as a breast conserving surgery), women with early-stage cancer currently receive six to seven weeks of radiation in the US, but three weeks of radiation provides three major benefits: it is just as clinically effective, costs less, and is more convenient. The procedure of three weeks of radiation after breast conserving surgery is called hypofractionated whole breast radiation.

As of 2013, only 34.5 percent of early-stage breast cancer patients over 50 received hypofractionated radiation, while only 21.1 percent of younger women received the shorter treatment. Other leading countries use hypofractionated radiation, including Canada and the United Kingdom. In Canada, over 70 percent of women with breast cancer received hypofractionated radiation therapy, and in the United Kingdom that percent is even higher. In both those countries, women with breast cancer experience remission and health again, which supports that the hypofractionated therapy works.

Moreover, both of the above-mentioned countries have national healthcare systems where the focus is not on insurance companies and making money through healthcare treatments. If the US started using hypofractionated therapy, then insurance companies would surely see the savings as would the patients. On top of the costs of the actual treatment, patients would not have to suffer the costs of time and transportation. As USA Today explains, for women who have hourly wage jobs, families, or live in rural parts of their states, to have to undergo radiation for seven weeks can seriously impede their lives. And if the shortened therapy works just as well, if not better, then why wouldn’t they opt for that?

Moreover, anyone who has undergone radiation therapy knows just how damaging it is to the body. If a cancer treatment can cut that down but four weeks, and still see the positive results, naturally she will want that. Radiation is hard on the body. Three weeks of radiation certainly sounds better than seven.

Part of the problem comes from the fact that women do not ask their doctors about different treatment options like this. The for-profit nature of the healthcare system in the US also contributes to the issue. Hospitals, medical companies, and pharmaceutical companies make more money on seven weeks of radiation. Fran Visco, the president of the National Breast Cancer Coalition, stated her frustrations: “How much evidence does the medical community need before it changes practice?” Visco also noted that doctors may make more money from longer treatment courses. “As patient advocates, we don’t want to believe this is financially motivated but find it difficult to understand what else could be the barrier,” she said. Not all doctors are motivated by profits, but if the research shows that hypofractionated radiation therapy is just as effective, more cost efficient, and less burdensome, then that is worth noting. And if practice in other countries further supports these, then women need to take action.

Yes, breast cancer is scary, but women must take an active role in their treatments. They must research, ask questions, and find the treatment that is best for them. Doctors need to provide more options and information instead of rushing to what has always been done or what makes the most money. People’s lives are more important than all that.

—–

Follow redOrbit on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and Pinterest.