http://annals.org/aim/article/2534407/variation-mammographic-breast-density-assessments-among-radiologists-clinical-practice-multicenter
​

If you have been told of dense breasts on a mammogram, this may or may not be a reproducible finding.  This article demonstrates that the X-ray diagnosis varies considerably from radiologist to radiologist.   
 
Mammography can discover breast malignancies in early phase before anything can be felt clinically.   Sometimes mammography shows dense breast tissue that might hide small lesions. Many state laws require that patients be informed if this is found, because the finding might suggest the value of further testing.  Such laws may have led to excessive reports of such findings. 
 
One’s best bet is see one of the top radiologists who abound in the New York area (and similarly elsewhere) and stay with the same radiologist.  Also bear in mind that the finding may be transient and the underlying cause may well not be serious.  

 http://www.mdedge.com/internalmedicinenews/article/111942/diabetes/experts-insulin-apps-can-pose-major-risks

​Smartphones are potentially the best way for insulin-dependent diabetics to calculate the bolus insulin requirement for a carbohydrate meal.  An FDA official reported at an American Association of Diabetes Educators that the insulin dose calculated by many common apps could be wrong.  This could lead to dangerous or even fatal hypoglycemia.   Currently the only FDA-approved  app is the Accu-Check Connect app.  The app uses data as set up on the patient's
​Accu-Chek by a health care provider.  Undoubtedly other apps are being developed for other glucose meters.   WFCR MD has no connection to the manufacturer of this device or any other such device.    

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/01/health/severe-eczema-atopic-dermatitis-drug.html?_r=0
​

​This is an exciting news for severe eczema sufferers.  The product may offer relief for the incessant itching, weeping skin that does not respond to topical or oral agents.  Prior approaches have often been ineffective and with multiple undesirable side effects.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/12/health/on-medicare-and-assessing-the-value-of-lung-cancer-screening.html?mabReward=CTM&module=WelcomeBackModal&contentCollection=N.Y.%20%2F%20Region&region=FixedCenter&action=click&src=recg&pgtype=article



This is a useful  discussion of screening for lung cancer in individuals who have been heavy smokers, even if they have long since quit smoking.    It parallels my own experience, where some of my patients have remained disease-free for several years after removal of small lung cancers.  And, aside from coincidence, CT scanning is the only way to find small lung cancers.  

I should mention that several of my patients’ have also had other small cancers found this way, particularly kidney cancers.   But, of course, testing can lead one on wild-goose chases that lead to negative biopsies, some with longer-than-ideal recovery periods.  Scanning also can look for other issues, such as aortic aneurysm and coronary arteriosclerosis. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/21/health/breast-cancer-ductal-carcinoma-in-situ-study.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

This reinforces the opinion that all of my patients have received from my consulting surgeons for several years.   Most patients can be followed closely for years without further or excisional surgery.   There are exceptions, such as BrCa positive patients, or where there is evidence of extensive disease on mammo or MRI.