More ACOG Games with Words

You already know the good news: the bill passed the health committee yesterday (thank you chairman Gottfried and the rest of the members!) The bad news yesterday ACOG was out in full force in Albany, lobbying and pamphletting against the bill, hoping to peel off supporters. Among the ACOG group, we definitely have some strong contenders for the "Dense Boob of the Month" award, which this blog will confer in June.

Cute title I know, but as we know dense boobs are not funny at all. They are dangerous & deadly. They obscure cancer. They need to be taken care of. We need to see through them.

ACOG doesn't mind circulating statements that are easily refuted. If they can sow confusion in the legislature, that is enough to endanger this life-saving legislation. Take this statement from them:

"Breast density is a common condition. On a scale of 1 – 4....Level 2 is some degree of density and about 90% of all women receiving a mammography have level 2, 3 and 4 breast density."

ACOG is pulling a fast one. Millions of mammogram reports are sent to gynecologists every year. Breasts are not reported as "dense" unless they are level 3 or level 4. Level 2 breasts are not considered dense, even though they contain slightly more fibroglandular tissue than Level 1 breasts. It's like calling coffee with a drop of milk in it "light" because it's lighter than completely black coffee. It's not. To say level 2 breasts are "dense" is to change the definition of "dense breasts." Period.

 ACOG says "there is no consistent definition of dense breast."

(ACOG is taking advantage of the fact that computerized tools have been developed to measure density with laser precision, but they are not widely used. The BI-RADS tool is what is widely used.)

Take a look at the attached image. The two breasts on the right are dense; the two on the left are not. This is not rocket science!

Level 1        Level 2     Level 3       Level 4


(p.s. Cancer also appears as white on mammograms; hence this bill.)

My 2009 mammogram report that was sent from my radiologist to my gynecologist said "The breasts are extremely dense, which lowers the sensitivity of mammography." That report relied on the widely used BI-RADS mammogram reporting tool. There was no disclaimer on my report saying that the definition of density was subject to interpretation.

Now that patients are asking for their doctors to share with us the same information in the same language that has been used on our reports for years (without our knowledge), medical organizations are playing with words--at the patient's expense.

Another whopper: ACOG's pamphlet also said "there is no scientific evidence that dense breast tissue is a factor for higher risk of breast cancer."

From the words of the American College of Radiology in 2010:

"breast density in and of itself has been shown by several studies to be an independent risk factor for the development of cancer, with the relative risk for women with the most dense breasts 2 to 6 times that of women with the least dense breasts."

As ACR says, there are numerous studies, so when ACOG flatly says "there is no scientific evidence" I don't know how to square this talking point with anything resembling a truthful statement.

Keep in mind that ACOG has never challenged information about breast density before this became a legislative issue. I discuss the reasons they are fighting this in earlier posts. (control of information and malpractice concerns.) 

If you need to hear it from a doctor, read these remarks from Thomas Kolb, a radiologist, in support of this bill. Kolb's research in 2002 was awarded the distinguished scientific paper of the year by the American Medical Association.

Here is a list of assembly codes committee members and here is a list of assembly rules committee members. If you belong in any of their districts, please call!

Current co-sponsors and multi-sponsors of the bill are below. Hevesi has been crossed out because he's been peeled off by ACOG and their bogus arguments. I hope he'll be the only one. Hevesi has reinstated his support! Thank you Mr. Hevesi!

Now if any of you are in Amy Paulin's district (Scarsdale, New Rochelle, White Plains), please give her the what-for, as she voted against the bill in health committee.

COSPNSR   

 Sweeney, Gunther, McEneny, Abinanti, Lancman, Colton, Jacobs,
 Millman, Barron, Rivera N, Maisel, Hooper, Roberts, Russell, Castro,
 Quart, Cahill, Galef, Englebright, O'Donnell, Schimel, Scarborough,
 Weprin, Linares, Cook, Robinson, Clark, Cymbrowitz, Latimer, Lifton,
 Lavine, Braunstein, Pretlow, Moya, Rivera J, Graf, Simanowitz,
 Stevenson, Titus, Magnarelli, Meng, Gibson, Morelle, Cusick, Ramos,
 Gabryszak, Rosenthal

MLTSPNSR 

 Abbate, Amedore, Arroyo, Aubry, Brennan, Burling, Calhoun, Conte,
 Crespo, Crouch, Curran, DenDekker, Dinowitz, Duprey, Hawley, Hevesi,
 Losquadro, Lupardo, Magee, Markey, Montesano, Murray, Peoples-Stokes,
 Perry, Ra, Raia, Rivera P, Saladino, Sayward, Tenney, Thiele, Titone,
 Weisenberg