Santa Cruz Good Times

Monday
Sep 22nd
Text size
  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size

A Dense Discussion

news2_senator_simitianSurvivor stories Breast cancer survivor and founder of Are You Dense? Nancy Cappello, speaks in Sacramento in support of SB 791, a breast cancer detection bill authored by Simitian that was vetoed in October.Advocates continue to fight for the cause behind California’s vetoed breast cancer detection bill

Nancy Cappello never imagined that she’d one day spend her time talking to strangers about her breasts. She also never expected to get breast cancer—she was a dutiful recipient of annual mammograms that routinely came back “normal,” after all—but somehow that happened, too.

In November 2003, Cappello once again received normal mammogram results that included “no significant findings.” But less than three months later—thanks to her gynecologist, who felt the lump during a standard annual exam—Cappello was diagnosed with stage three breast cancer. The cancer had traveled outside of her breast to her lymph nodes, 18 of which were removed and 13 of which contained cancer. Just a matter of weeks after her uneventful mammogram, she underwent six surgeries, eight chemotherapy treatments, and 24 radiation treatments.

When she inquired as to why her late-stage cancer hadn’t been detected earlier, Cappello was informed that she has dense breast tissue, and that dense tissue can obscure findings. Both cancer and dense tissue show up as white areas on mammograms, however this information is rarely shared with patients.

“I was outraged that no one had ever told me that I had dense tissue,” Cappello says. “That’s when I pledged that I was going to do something about this for other women.”

Throughout her cancer treatments that summer, Cappello fought for legislation in her home state of Connecticut that would fix this disconnect. In the process, she founded a 501c3 nonprofit called Are You Dense? that raises awareness about dense breast tissue and promotes early detection. The group was eventually successful at getting two first-of-their-kind laws passed in Connecticut: a breast density insurance bill in 2005, which required that other breast cancer detection screening methods be covered by insurance, and a breast density notice bill in 2009 that requires mammogram results to state whether a patient has dense tissue.

news2_nohairNancy CappelloAre You Dense? was an active proponent of California’s breast density bill, SB 791, which was authored by Sen. Joe Simitian and presented to the legislature over the summer. Although it received broad bi-partisan support and passed the state senate with only one naysayer and the assembly 66 to six, Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed the bill on Sunday, Oct. 9. The decision came as he rushed to get through hundreds of bills leftover from the recently ended legislative session by his midnight, Oct. 9 deadline.

SB 791 came to be thanks to a Santa Cruz County woman named Amy Colton, whose own story closely resembles Cappello’s. Despite years of routine mammograms and “normal” results, Colton was only informed of her density after she completed treatments for breast cancer. The Soquel resident and registered nurse submitted the breast density inform bill in Simitian’s annual “There Oughta Be a Law” contest.

Colton and Cappello’s experience is not unique: According to the American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN), 40 percent of women receiving mammograms have dense breast tissue and these women are five times more likely to develop breast cancer. Yet, a January 2011 Mayo Clinic study found that 75 percent of cancer is missed in women with dense tissue through mammograms alone. The primary cause of “false-negative results” in mammograms is high breast density, according to the National Cancer Institute.

Under current federal law, radiologists must note a patient’s breast density when reporting mammogram results to the referring physician. The law also requires radiologists to send patients a letter with their mammogram results—but this letter does not include information regarding breast density, or that the presence of dense tissue could render the mammogram inconclusive.

“It has been recognized since the beginning of mammography that dense breast tissue can obscure breast cancers, making them difficult to diagnose,” says Kenneth Averill, medical director of Dominican Breast Center in Santa Cruz. “[However], it should be noted that even in patients with extremely dense tissue, mammography has value in detecting early cancer.” Dominican Breast Center conducts around 13,000 mammograms a year, 93 to 95 percent of which return “normal” results.

The veto came as a big disappointment to Simitian, whose district includes Santa Cruz. “I’ve been in the legislature for more than a decade now, and I’ve gotten vetoes before, but this one was a heartbreaker,” Simitian tells GT. “This bill was a life saver. It’s an opportunity lost.”

Gov. Brown cited the wording as cause for his rejection, siding with major physicians groups who opposed the bill because it could “cause panic” among women with dense breasts. In his Oct. 9 veto message, the governor wrote that, while he supports everyone’s right to information about their own health, he “struggled over the words. Were they a path to greater knowledge or unnecessary anxiety?”

Simitian recalls hearing the anxiety argument made by the California Medical Association during hearings and debates, and feels it is “at best patronizing.”

“Our opposition acknowledged that yes, the risk is higher for women with dense breast tissue. Yes, they aren’t as well served by mammograms. And yet we continued to get the argument that somehow patients couldn’t handle the truth,” he says.

Colton, who declined an interview with GT, promptly sent a public letter to Gov. Brown in response to his veto. “In your veto message, you cite the ‘unnecessary anxiety’ that breast density notification would cause,” she writes. “I ask you for a moment to consider the ‘anxiety’ of a late stage cancer diagnosis. As if that isn’t devastating enough, imagine learning that your cancer might very well have been detected at an earlier stage had you received notice that you have a condition that masks breast cancer. There is no comparison between the speculated ‘anxiety’ that breast density notification would cause and the ‘anxiety’ of a late stage cancer diagnosis.”

But despite its failure to pass, the bill did succeed at raising awareness about breast density. Averill, of Dominican Breast Center, has seen increased interest about density among Santa Cruz women. “From a local perspective, the new level of awareness of this issue brought about by Amy Colton's efforts has lead to numerous patients inquiring about their own density pattern and so far these have been addressed on an individual basis,” he says.

The fight to legislate this is not over, either—Simitian says to expect another bill next year. Proponents are open to negotiating the wording, he says, but only to an extent. “I’m not interested in some boiler-plate language that gets buried in the bottom of a form that doesn’t communicate meaningful information to a patient, but if we can find something that satisfies the governor and still communicates crisply and clearly to patients, then I’m open to some wording that would do that,” the senator says. “We will keep trying.”

Similar legislation is springing up across the country: breast density inform bills will be introduced in a half dozen states in 2012, and the federal Breast Density and Mammography Reporting Act (HR 3102) was introduced on Oct. 5., thanks to the efforts of Are You Dense?

“We don’t want a woman’s zip code to determine her access to this information,” Cappello says of the federal bill. “If a woman in Connecticut has a mammogram this week, she’ll hear about her density. But the women in California are depending on luck—the luck of having a good doctor who will talk to her about it.” Ninety-five percent of women don’t know their breast tissue density, and less than one in 10 doctors inform their patients of such information, according to a May 2010 survey conducted by Harris Interactive.

In the meantime, in addition to the usual letter they receive, Cappello suggests that California women request a copy of the report radiologists generate for their doctor. “When I ended up asking for my report, I had a decade of reports that said ‘patient has extremely dense tissue,’” Cappello says. If a woman’s report does indicate dense tissue, she recommends discussing risk factors and screening options with one’s physician.

For Simitian, it’s only a matter of time before California gets on board. “I believe a decade from now we will … look back and say ‘can you believe there ever was a time when women were denied this information?’” he says. “But every day longer we have to wait to make this information available to the patient is a day patients are put at risk unnecessarily.”


Photo captions: 1. Survivor stories Breast cancer survivor and founder of Are You Dense? Nancy Cappello, speaks in Sacramento in support of SB 791, a breast cancer detection bill authored by Simitian that was vetoed in October. 2. Nancy Cappello Photos: Are You Dense
Comments (3)Add Comment
...
written by Bez Maxwell, October 24, 2011
Just e mailed Letter to the Editor:
I'm not just outraged that Gov. Brown vetoed the Breast Density Bill a few weekends ago, a bill would inform women patients about the density of their breast tissue and the therefore accuracy of mammograms, as outlined in your article "A Dense Discussion". It's his reason why that really infuriates me.

The bill sought to inform women patients about the density of their breast tissue and therefore the accuracy of their mammograms--dense tissue=harder to read mammograms, as outlined in your article, "A Dense Discussion". If this bill hadn't been aimed at only women, it would have passed hands down. Think about it--if almost half the men in the country had a normal prostate condition that made regular detection of prostate cancer inaccurate, there is no way that a bill aimed at informing these men about this condition and helping them get further testing would be vetoed due to fears of "panic" and "unnecessary anxiety". Give me a break! As if we women aren't capable of understanding the concept of increased risk and can't handle making decisions about our own care without falling into hysterics. That's a pathetic excuse for axing a bill that would save those same women's lives.

To the Governor's credit, this latent sexism is so pervasive and unconscious that he probably had no idea that prejudiced thinking informed his decision.
...
written by Beverly Lovelace, October 22, 2011
It seems a violation of informed consent not to reveal this critical information to women. It is known, it is reported to the doctor, and yet we do not receive it. Wrong wrong wrong.

I too had faithful mammograms for over a decade. I had a "clear" mammogram in May and was diagnosed with a huge 6.7cm tumor in July of the same year - because I had dense breast tissue.

This "anxiety" excuse makes me want to spit. Women with dense tissue SHOULD be anxious! Mammograms are inadequate!!
...
written by Marci Goorabian, October 19, 2011
As a stage IIIB breast cancer survivor I am so angry that the medical profession has lead women to believe that the "all clear" letter they receive after a yearly mammogram is lacking vital information regarding breast density. 90% of women have never been told by thier doctors that they have dense breast tissue that can mask a tumor on a mammogram.
An early stage diagnosis results in less invasive treatment, less medical costs and a much higher rate of survival. ALL women should be provided their breast density information.
Remember doctors you took an oath, DO NO HARM.

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy
 

Share this on your social networks

Bookmark and Share

Share this

Bookmark and Share

 

Catwalk on the Wild Side

Meet the artists and designers behind this year’s edition of FashionART, SantaCruz’s most outrageous fashion show

 

The New Tech Nexus

Community leaders in science and technology unite to form web-based networking program

 

Watch List

From Google to the government to data brokers, why your privacy is now a thing of the past

 

The Peace Equation

Sunday is the United Nations’ International Day of Peace, a global peace-building day when nations, leaders, governments, communities and individuals are invited to end conflict, cease hostilities, creat 24 hours of non-violence and promote goodwill. Monday is Autumn equinox as the Sun enters Libra (right relations with all of life). The Soul Year now begins. We work in the dark part of the year (Persephone underground) preparing for the new light of winter solstice. Tuesday to Wednesday is the Virgo new moon festival. We know two things about peace. “The absence of war does not signify peace.” And “Peace is an ongoing process.” In its peace-building emphasis, the UNIDP, through education, attempts to create a “culture of peace, understanding and tolerance”. Esoterically we are reminded of the peace equation: “Intentions for goodwill (and acting upon this intention) create right relations with all earth’s kingdoms which create (the ongoing process of) peace on earth.” At noon on Sunday, in all time zones, millions of participating groups will observe a moment of silence for peace on earth. Bells will ring, candles will be lit, and doves released as the New Group of World Servers recite the Great Invocation (humanity’s mantram of direction). To connect with others around the world see www.cultureofpeace.org    Let us join together with the mother (Virgo). Goodwill to all, let peace prevail on earth. The dove is the symbol for the day.
Sign up for Good Times weekly newsletter
Get the latest news, events

RSS Feed Burner

 Subscribe in a reader

Latest Comments

 

Sweet Treats

Local cannabis bakers win award for cookies

 

What fashion trends do you want to see, or not see?

Santa Cruz  |  High School Guidance Counselor

 

Best of Santa Cruz County

The 2013 Santa Cruz County Readers' Poll and Critics’ Picks It’s our biggest issue of the year, and in it, your votes—more than 6,500 of them—determined the winners of The Best of Santa Cruz County Readers’ Poll. New to the long list of local restaurants, shops and other notables that captured your interest: Best Beer Selection, Best Locally Owned Business, Best Customer Service and Best Marijuana Dispensary. In the meantime, many readers were ever so chatty online about potential new categories. Some of the suggestions that stood out: Best Teen Program and Best Web Design/Designer. But what about: Dog Park, Church, Hotel, Local Farm, Therapist (I second that!) or Sports Bar—not to be confused with Bra. Our favorite suggestion: Best Act of Kindness—one reader noted Café Gratitude and the free meals it offered to the Santa Cruz Police Department in the aftermath of recent crimes. Perhaps some of these can be woven into next year’s ballot, so stay tuned. In the meantime, enjoy the following pages and take note of our Critics’ Picks, too, beginning on page 91. A big thanks for voting—and for reading—and an even bigger congratulations to all of the winners. Enjoy.  -Greg Archer, EditorBest of Santa Cruz County Readers’ Poll INDEX

 

Santa Clara Wine Trail

My memories of growing up in England include my mother pouring port after Sunday dinner—and sometimes a glass of sherry before dinner. My family didn’t drink much wine back then, but we certainly made up for it with the port and sherry.