Archived News of the Week

Needle Biopsies: Are they Safe?

Nope. And the "cancer industry" is not breathing a word of this to you. Why? Because it works for the cancer industry, it's the way diagnosis has been performed for more than a hundred years (since 1870) and . . . you can't teach an old dog new tricks? It's always surprising and disappointing to me when I discover instances, esp. in my cranky AARP years, where the medical doctors don't always have our best interests mind. Isn't it obvious to you that if the "industry" found out from respectable researchers that 1 out of 20 needle biopsies (this number was ascertained with needle biopsies of the liver) results in a new tumor that they would STOP THEM RIGHT NOW?

Then we waited a full month before I had a pretty wide-margin lumpectomy. In the month before my second surgery, I had time to do lots of reading/research and I also talked to a lot of people. After my research, I knew that I would be rejecting their recommendation of a mastectomy which they were still doing back then for small tumors. After they excised my in situ tumor in the second surgery and found that I was node-negative (phew!), they then recommended a 6 week course of daily radiation treatments.

But, I couldn't see any logical reason - if indeed the tumor was encapsulated - why I needed the radiation which was theoretically to kill escaped seeds. Still don't. I knew the radiation could open me up for a host of future problems like, immediate and chronic lymphedema of my right arm or future blood and lymph disorders like Hodgkins or leukemia. So I ended up signing a paper admitting that I was "wrong" to reject radiation, was told I was "stupid" and left.

I know I was extraordinarily lucky in my cancer experience, but I am here to warn you to think twice before agreeing to a needle biopsy - of anything: Breast, prostate, liver, colon, head and neck tumors, index finger, whatever. Don't let them poke and prod and disrupt the natural terrain around a possibly non-dangerous in situ tumor. Your body is doing its job perfectly - by walling off or encapsulating the tumor from the rest of your body. I definately am on the side of removing the tumor and lots of the tissue around it, but I am certainly not of the poke-prod-aspirate school.

The latest research on needle biopsy was done at the John Wayne Cancer Institute in Santa Monica, California in June of 2004 and was reported in the AMA's prestigious journal the Archives of Surgery. The report studied 663 women who were known to have breast cancer. Half had been biopsied with either a fine gauge or large bore needle. The other half had had the tumor removed either by wide-margin excision or lumpectomy. The study found that the women who had either kind of needle biopsy were 50% more likely to have cancer in their sentinal nodes than women who underwent the surgical removal of the whole tumor in one of the two ways mentioned above. The authors went on to conclude that . . . [ the increase of node infiltration was] "perhaps due in part to the mechanical disruption of the tumor by the needle."

Tens of thousands of people each year are diagnosed via needle biopsy in the US alone. "Currently 1.2 million US women a year undergo breast biopsies and between 20 and 25% of these tests show cancer. This means than virtually all the women in the US who were diagnosed with breast cancer ( 215,990) in 2004 went through this proceedure." (Ralph Moss, Ph.D cancer researcher on his website,cancerdecisions.com)

How many of the unfortunate women who were told they had a node-positive malignancy, which immediately means leaping into chemo, radiation, misery and torture, were actually harboring a relatively maneageable in situ malignancy before their tumor was aggressively punctured 5 or 6 times with a hollow needle in order to obtain an adequate tissue sample? (Malignant seeds can travel up the needle track then explode outward into lymph nodes, liver etc.)

So, why isn't this significant piece of news the lead-off on the nightly news or scrolling under CNN's endless Murdochian-slanted news coverage or at the very least a page two article in the Tuesday New York Times Science Times? "The whole notion that biopsies may themselves spread cancer may be too hot to handle for most of the media and the medical profession. It is one of those medical secrets that, it seems, is best left unexplored." (Ralph Moss, again) And therein lies more proof of the arrogance and power of the AMA and the pharmaceutical companies.

I would be outraged - and litigious - if I knew that information like this existed yet I was still given the needle biopsy without informed consent. How incredibly angry would I be if I found out that my node-metastasis was caused not by the natural progression of my disease, but because of a known and potentially lethal method of diagnosis? The cancer industry runs smoothly on the well-oiled wheels of needle biopsy, surgery, chemotherapy and radiation (cut, poison and burn) and the dinosaurs are not apt to change without some earthshaking event, like maybe a huge lawsuit that gets some media attention or a famous rock star speaking up (sad but true).

Here's what you can do: Start demanding less invasive ways of diagnosing tumors, the withering and scornful looks of your MD be damned. Obviously, think long and hard before you agree to any needle biopsy. You could also look into imaging techniques like CT, MRI and PET scans and ultrasound. Avoid mammograms because of the breast compression which itself may be responsible for dislodging clusters of cancer cells, thus facilitating spread. The most promising diagnostic tool is thermography which is non-invasive and non-compressive and costs about $350 which you may have to pay out of pocket. The sensitivity (or the accuracy in locating tumors) of themography in a recent study was a remarkable 99%. (Perisky, 2003). There is a Thermography Center in Lousiville.

No statement or content in this web site shall be construed as offering diagnosis, cure, mitigation or prevention of any disease. Anyone having questions regarding the content of this site should contact their own health care provider for verification.