MammoSite: FDA-Approved, But Does It Work?

EXCELLENT. Glad to hear you're doing well. - PJ

Joni, I'm very glad you had a good experience with MammoSite. Best wishes for a cancer-free future! - PJ

Thank you.  Should I be more concerned about a recurrence of the cancer since I did not have conventional radiation?

Joni,

Mammosite is far from experimental and has thus far had excellent success rates.  We do not have thirty year data because it hasn't been around for thirty years.  But, conventional radiation had to start here as well.  Everything has to start at the beginning.  I don't think you should worry due to the type of radiation.  Just continue with your normal surveillance of breast self exam, clinical brest exam and mammogram!

Sherree Bennett, RN, CBEC

Thank you!

Thanks for this additional information. We need all the facts we can get when trying to make these difficult treatment decisions. And in the end, nothing is guaranteed: we're all participants in the continuing experiment that's cancer treatment. We do the best we can with the information we have, make a decision, and go for it. - PJH

Thank you so much for sharing this information as a physician.  I am a breast health professional and it is important that women understand all of their options based off of scientific facts and not main stream media hype.  Mammosite is far from experimental but rather, a proven benefit to women that saves them time and trouble (and I have no financial tie to the company or any way of making money from it). 

Our informatin must be base don facts and not fears.

Thanks

Sherree Bennett, RN, CBEC

Still, do you believe there's any benefit in the many years of survival data for standard radiation, vs. MammoSite? What about what Dr. Vicini says, that we just don't have that 30 years of data yet? Where we do for standard radaition? Should that tip the scales one way or ther other? - PJH

In my opinion it does not because no treatment starts with thirty year data.  Every single drug, surgery and treatment has to start at ground zero and go from there.  Once mammosite reached the FDA for approval, it was based on clinical trials as cited in the second article.  Herceptin, which is now standard treatment for Her-2 positive tumors does not have 30 year data either.  Breast conserving surgery itself does not quite have 30 year data yet.  I believe Dr. Vicini is saying we can't compare 30 year data because it doesn't exist yet, that doesn't mean that the data we have is bad. 

Sherree

Good point. And I certainly wasn't implying the data on MammoSite was bad. Just that there wasn't as much of it to go on. You're the professional, I'm just speaking as a survivor. I gues your choice depends on whether you're comfortable with new technology, or someone who's more comfortable with the tried-and-true. - PJH

Thanks for writing, Sherree. I've enjoyed reading your many insightful posts and comments on this breast cancer support site, and it's great to see you take such a passionate stand on Mammosite as a treatment option for breast cancer patients.

I don't think, however, that discussion about Mammosite, along with how well patients understand their treatment options and the research behind the offerings, can be brushed aside as mainstream media hype.

The author, PJ Hamel, has responded to an important recent news article that deserves a chance for critique and review among breast cancer patients and survivors who have been through the process of making difficult treatment decisions. This is not type of conversation that should exclude or diminish the importance of patient or survivor input, even when medical professionals jump into the fray.

Keep in mind that an entire marketing site for Mammosite exists to promote stories of positive experiences for breast cancer patients. It's called Voices of Mammosite. http://www.voicesofmammosite.com/

I haven't read all the stories on the site, but my guess is that Voices of Mammosite does not emphasize stories of those women who did not have a 100% favorable experience -- or a bad experience -- with the Mammosite treatment.

If you do seek to focus on what other medical professionals have to say, you might want to check out the blog of Dr. Jeffrey Parks, who profiled Mammosite on his blog Buckeye Surgeon, a few weeks before the New York Times article was published.

He writes:

"What is the bottom line?
At this point, although the preliminary evidence for APBI with the Mammosite Balloon is encouraging, we do not yet have definitive, level I evidence to support its use as standard therapy. At this point, it's still an experimental treatment modality that cannot be routinely recommended for all women with early stage breast cancer. The ongoing NSABP B39/RTOG 0413 trial is a randomized controlled trial comparing conventional whole breast irradition with APBI in patients with Stage 0,I,and II breast cancer. Results will be available in the year 2015. In the meantime, I cannot in good conscience recommend APBI until the level I evidence is there to support it."

Please read Dr. Parks' entire post on Mammosite to get a full sense of his thinking.

Thank you Sarah, I apologize if it seemed dismisive of survivor input.  I had no intention of doing so as I am a survivor myself.  I simply did not want to see a complete scare because women are afraid they had an experimental treatment that has no science behind it.  All patients deserved to make an informed choice about any treatment they receive including radiation of whichever kind.  I just wanted to inject that it is scientifically sound and we have good encouraging data and will continue to collect it.  There are many more than 25 women involved with great results. 

Thanks

Sherree, all input is welcome here. Thanks for contributing to the dialogue today - it's been very informative, and I daresay may help women make a good choice about radiation, since they know now - if they didn't before - that there IS a choice: that one method isn't superior to the other. Keep those good posts coming! PJH

Sarah, I appreciate your citation of another source of information. Only with as much good data as possible can each of us survivors make her own determination as to treatment. Cancer-world can be confusing; with such easy access to SO much information, much of it contradictory, preliminary, or opinion, it's valuable to have sources you can trust. You make this site a source I can trust; thank you. PJ

I have had  this operation and radiation for 5  days twice a  day .and am still recuperating. I am interesed in hearing more about it as I was given very little on it b4 operation.Except that it was better because it took less time. The catheter was very heavy and uncomfortable on small and old muscles of breast. I recomend it be used on young women.

Hi - YOu might find this first-person account of MammoSite treatment interesting- PJH

I am "Survivor" who had MammoSite almost 3 years ago and am still cancer-free.  As other survivors know, when I was diagnosed there was a feeling of urgency - get this out of me! - and I didn't do enough research beforehand.  So if I'd known then what I know now, I would have elected for a double mastectomy.  Just my personal choice, as my cancer was considered aggressive - the hormone receptors were negative and the HER-2 was positive.

Never look back and second-guess; doesn't do a bit of good. You're cancer-free now, that's what counts. Glad things are going well for you- PJH

Excellent advice!

thank you PJ.

I do not look back nor do I have regrets.   I am grateful for the way things went for me.

Only during the pathology after my mastectomy, did they find an aggressive 2cm tumor which was NEVER seen on MRI, mammogram or PET scan.  

I consider myself very lucky.  

No tests or treatments are foolproof.  This is something everyone should accept and know.

Danielle