Bonnie J. Addario Responds to Consumer Reports March issue cover story
Leading magazine downplays value of lung cancer screenings, to the detriment of advances in early detection research
SAN CARLOS, Calif., March 20, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The following statement was issued by Bonnie J. Addario regarding the March cover article in Consumer Reports: The cancer tests you need—and those you don’t:
“I am appalled by the March 2013 Consumer Reports cover story (The cancer tests you need—and those you don’t), because of the misleading and misguided message it sends to people who really need life-saving cancer screening tests, and how it discredits the value and importance of proper early detention cancer screening tests.
“The article’s irresponsible reporting is best summed up in this statement on page 31: ‘But most people shouldn’t waste their time on screenings for bladder, lung, oral, ovarian, prostate, pancreatic, skin or testicular cancers.’
“Consumer Reports is one of the most trusted publications in America. Anyone, whether they know they are low or high risk, will read that statement and walk away believing early detection cancer screening tests are unnecessary. The six-page article mentions only twice that its ratings apply only to asymptomatic, low-risk population.
“Shame on Consumer Reports. We are talking about people’s lives here.
“I myself am a lung cancer survivor. For more than a year I was misdiagnosed and not given an early detection screening test, even though I was in a high-risk category. When I was finally diagnosed I was stage 3B. Unlike so many others, I beat the odds. But my odds would have been better with an early detection cancer screening test. I founded the Bonnie J. Addario Lung Cancer Foundation seven years ago to advocate and raise money for better research, education, early detection and treatment. Because something must be done.
The stats are staggering.
Lung cancer kills more people than the next five biggest cancers combined.
Eighty percent of new lung cancer cases are former smokers or never smokers.
Yet the five-year survival rate has been unchanged for more than 40 years. Only 15 percent of diagnosed patients live longer than five years.
More funding and better research will lead to more effective early detection screening, which will save and prolong lives.
“Cancer screening and treatment are certainly at a crossroads, as the article states. This is made clear as well by recent legislation to direct more tobacco settlement money to early lung cancer detection programs. But the article’s irresponsible representation of the value of screening tests, I fear, might damage the progress my lung cancer foundation has made over the past seven years – just as we are making great strides.
“People cannot readily see symptoms of lung cancer. Symptoms are deep in the lungs, unlike breast cancer, where lumps can be felt and are visible. When you are diagnosed with lung cancer it is often at stage four, when it’s too late.
“The Consumer Reports article makes only one responsible and thoughtful statement: ‘Weighing the risks and benefits of cancer screening is best done in the context of a patient-doctor relationship.’
“Consumer Reports should stay out of the health care advice business, and stick to writing about toasters and washing machines. I wouldn’t approach my doctor about whether I should buy a Honda or a Ford. And likewise, people should not consult Consumer Reports to help them decide whether or not to have a potentially life-saving cancer screening test.”