by Daniel Barker, Natural News:
In recent years, a new approach to treating breast cancer with radiation therapy has been developed. The introduction of hypofractionated whole breast irradiation (as opposed to conventional whole breast irradiation) has reduced the length of treatment by about half — from between five and seven weeks to only three or four.
The treatment is just as effective, costs less and is vastly preferred by women undergoing radiation treatment after lumpectomies. The reduced duration of treatment means less time away from families and workplaces, so it’s no surprise that the women being treated are in favor of it.
Hypofractionated whole breast irradiation has been proven in many clinical trials to be as effective as the conventional approach, and in most countries it is now being prescribed for nearly three out of four breast cancer patients.
However, in the United States, only one in three breast cancer patients are currently receiving it.
So why, if the treatment has the same effect and costs less, while also being more comfortable and convenient for patients, is it not being more widely prescribed in the U.S.?
Although some claim that the use of the old method is merely “ingrained” in physicians who are skeptical about new therapies, this can hardly be used as an excuse — especially when there have been multiple randomized trials proving its effectiveness.
And in light of the fact that the rest of the world has adopted hypofractionated whole breast irradiation as the standard treatment, it’s difficult to believe that American doctors are simply uninformed or “behind the times.”
So that leaves only one possible explanation: money.
It may be cynical to assume so, but judging from the way the entire medical industry operates, it’s not a huge leap of the imagination.
Please follow SGT Report on Twitter & help share the message.