Huge Study Shows Mammograms Useless, Maybe Deadly
Feb 12, 2014 15:22:20 #
Los-Angeles-Shooter
Loc: Los Angeles
Vast Study Casts Doubt on Value of Mammograms
Tuesday, 11 Feb 2014 10:15 PM
The value of yearly mammograms is under fire once again, with a long-running Canadian study contending that annual screening in women aged 40 to 59 does not lower breast cancer death rates.
For 25 years, the researchers followed nearly 90,000 women who were randomly assigned either to get screening mammograms or not.
"Mammography detected many more invasive breast cancers," said lead researcher Dr. Cornelia Baines, professor emeriti at the University of Toronto's Dalla Lana School of Public Health. "Survival time was longer in women getting mammography."
"[However], the number of deaths from breast cancer was the same in both groups at 25 years," she said.
Special: Suzanne Somers Found the Doctors Who Beat Cancer
"It is increasingly being recognized that there are significant harms from screening, and that screening can do much less now than 40 years ago because of improved therapy," Baines added. "Twenty-two percent of the mammography group with screen-detected invasive beast cancer were over-diagnosed and unnecessarily inflicted with therapy."
Over-diagnosis is defined as the detection of harmless cancers that will not cause symptoms or problems during a patient's lifetime.
The study, which began in 1980 in 15 screening centers in six Canadian provinces, was published Feb. 11 in the online edition of the journal BMJ.
Women in the mammography group had a total of five mammograms -- one a year for five years. Those aged 40 to 49 in the mammography group and all women aged 50 to 59 in both groups also had an annual physical exam. Women aged 40 to 49 in the no-mammography group had a single physical exam followed by typical care.
During the next 25 years, 3,250 women who got screening mammographies were diagnosed with breast cancer, compared with 3,133 in the no-mammography group, according to the study. While 500 women in the mammography group died during the follow up, 505 in the no-mammography group did.
In 2009, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force updated its recommendations on screening mammograms, suggesting them for women aged 50 to 74 every two years. Among women aged 40 to 49, the task force recommended only a discussion with a woman's doctor on the pros and cons of screening.
But other U.S.-based organizations, including the American Cancer Society, continue to recommend annual screening mammograms for women beginning at age 40.
The American College of Radiology, which also supports annual screening mammograms for women aged 40 and older, reacted strongly to the Canadian findings. In a statement issued Feb. 11, the college called the report "an incredibly misleading analysis based on the deeply flawed and widely discredited Canadian National Breast Screening Study."
Among those flaws, according to the college: the quality of mammograms done in the study was poor and the skills of the imaging technologists were not adequate.
The new report isn't a surprise, said Dr. Carol Lee, chairwoman of the college's breast imaging communications committee. "When it was first reported 20 years ago, it didn't show a benefit," she said.
The findings are at odds with many other reports that show a benefit for routine screening, Lee added.
"Screening mammography has been shown over and over again to decrease mortality from breast cancer," she said.
Lee said she is "concerned [the new study] is going to discourage women from having mammograms."
In an editorial accompanying the study, experts from the University of Oslo, the Harvard School of Public Health and other institutions agreed with the Canadian researchers that the rationale for screening needs to be reassessed by policy makers.
Baines said her research points to the value of offering screening mammograms only to those at higher risk of breast cancer.
"In time, the hope is to offer screening to a subset of the population [that has] been
identified, probably by genetic markers, to be very likely to benefit from screening," she said.
Tuesday, 11 Feb 2014 10:15 PM
The value of yearly mammograms is under fire once again, with a long-running Canadian study contending that annual screening in women aged 40 to 59 does not lower breast cancer death rates.
For 25 years, the researchers followed nearly 90,000 women who were randomly assigned either to get screening mammograms or not.
"Mammography detected many more invasive breast cancers," said lead researcher Dr. Cornelia Baines, professor emeriti at the University of Toronto's Dalla Lana School of Public Health. "Survival time was longer in women getting mammography."
"[However], the number of deaths from breast cancer was the same in both groups at 25 years," she said.
Special: Suzanne Somers Found the Doctors Who Beat Cancer
"It is increasingly being recognized that there are significant harms from screening, and that screening can do much less now than 40 years ago because of improved therapy," Baines added. "Twenty-two percent of the mammography group with screen-detected invasive beast cancer were over-diagnosed and unnecessarily inflicted with therapy."
Over-diagnosis is defined as the detection of harmless cancers that will not cause symptoms or problems during a patient's lifetime.
The study, which began in 1980 in 15 screening centers in six Canadian provinces, was published Feb. 11 in the online edition of the journal BMJ.
Women in the mammography group had a total of five mammograms -- one a year for five years. Those aged 40 to 49 in the mammography group and all women aged 50 to 59 in both groups also had an annual physical exam. Women aged 40 to 49 in the no-mammography group had a single physical exam followed by typical care.
During the next 25 years, 3,250 women who got screening mammographies were diagnosed with breast cancer, compared with 3,133 in the no-mammography group, according to the study. While 500 women in the mammography group died during the follow up, 505 in the no-mammography group did.
In 2009, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force updated its recommendations on screening mammograms, suggesting them for women aged 50 to 74 every two years. Among women aged 40 to 49, the task force recommended only a discussion with a woman's doctor on the pros and cons of screening.
But other U.S.-based organizations, including the American Cancer Society, continue to recommend annual screening mammograms for women beginning at age 40.
The American College of Radiology, which also supports annual screening mammograms for women aged 40 and older, reacted strongly to the Canadian findings. In a statement issued Feb. 11, the college called the report "an incredibly misleading analysis based on the deeply flawed and widely discredited Canadian National Breast Screening Study."
Among those flaws, according to the college: the quality of mammograms done in the study was poor and the skills of the imaging technologists were not adequate.
The new report isn't a surprise, said Dr. Carol Lee, chairwoman of the college's breast imaging communications committee. "When it was first reported 20 years ago, it didn't show a benefit," she said.
The findings are at odds with many other reports that show a benefit for routine screening, Lee added.
"Screening mammography has been shown over and over again to decrease mortality from breast cancer," she said.
Lee said she is "concerned [the new study] is going to discourage women from having mammograms."
In an editorial accompanying the study, experts from the University of Oslo, the Harvard School of Public Health and other institutions agreed with the Canadian researchers that the rationale for screening needs to be reassessed by policy makers.
Baines said her research points to the value of offering screening mammograms only to those at higher risk of breast cancer.
"In time, the hope is to offer screening to a subset of the population [that has] been
identified, probably by genetic markers, to be very likely to benefit from screening," she said.
Feb 12, 2014 15:24:30 #
Feb 12, 2014 15:42:17 #
Los-Angeles-Shooter
Loc: Los Angeles
This is only the latest (but one of the biggest and best-designed) study to cast serious doubt on mammograms. Despite its conflict of interest financial stake in mammograms, even the notorious American Cancer Society is steadily backing away from its heretofore 100% advocacy of mammograms.
Feb 12, 2014 16:03:40 #
Los-Angeles-Shooter
Loc: Los Angeles
As a side note, some studies raise considerable argument about the value of "routine" screening colonoscopies, except for clearly high-risk individuals. However, with the medical profession making hundreds of millions of dollars on this procedure per year (or is it billions?) there is considerable resistance to questioning its efficacy.
Feb 13, 2014 16:04:39 #
Feb 13, 2014 16:59:30 #
Los-Angeles-Shooter
Loc: Los Angeles
CaptJimmy wrote:
Interesting...where did you find this article? Thanks...
Widely reported on. Use a search engine: "Huge Australian Mammography study"
https://www.google.com/search?q=huge+australian+mammography+study&rlz=1C1FDUM_enUS482US490&oq=huge+australian+mammography+study&aqs=chrome..69i57.6835j0j8&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8
Feb 13, 2014 18:17:56 #
Feb 13, 2014 18:43:29 #
I watched this on the news last night and was amazed. Most men I've talked to seem to think these screenings are a waste of time or that this is a good reason for opting out of a mammogram (they say they've heard how painful it is). As a female, I resent this study since it is the only tool we have other than self exam which is even worse as a diagnostic tool. Until there is a more reliable way of detecting breast cancer (this includes the type that is not felt but appears as inflamed tissue on scans) I see no reason to abandon it. Price in this instance does not matter. I've lost 4 friends to breast cancer that could have been detected with a mammo but the ladies all felt it was a waste of time. My sister and my mother were saved with mammograms. When medicine becomes a matter of living and dying by the dollar, we have lost all sense of right and wrong.
Feb 13, 2014 20:41:25 #
All I know is a mammogram found early stages of breast cancer in my wife and saved her life.
Feb 13, 2014 21:10:15 #
If a woman has to trust her life to a procedure would she select a self exam or a mammogram? Even an examination by an experienced physician is no guarantee that an early cancer is going to be found.
On regard to "routine" colonoscopy let's not forget that cancer of the colon is a common killer and a simple colonoscopy can detect it and save a life.
On regard to "routine" colonoscopy let's not forget that cancer of the colon is a common killer and a simple colonoscopy can detect it and save a life.
Feb 13, 2014 23:03:57 #
Los-Angeles-Shooter
Loc: Los Angeles
mslubner wrote:
I watched this on the news last night and was amaz... (show quote)
I'll skip the sad stuff and address the facts. There is considerable evidence that mammograms DO NOT save lives. There is evidence that other techniques, such as thermal imaging are more effective. There is evidence that the radiation from mammograms causes more deaths than the mammograms save. There is such strong evidence that even the American Cancer Society, which has strong financial reasons to push Mammograms, is backing off from its flat advocacy of routine mammogram screening. As far as your comments about the "dollar" that should be directed toward the profiteers from mammograms, not toward those questioning mammograms.
Feb 20, 2014 07:23:59 #
I am stunned by the stupidity of educated professionals who argue for obsolete technologies such as thermography and against multi study proof of the benefits of mammography. I refer the to the American College of Radiology for an intelligent rebuttal. The Canadian study was deeply flawed as are the conclusions. Someone within an agenda will always find a way to twist the interpretation to fit an A priori conclusion however erroneous.
And until someone can tell us which subset of breast cancer will eventually turn out to be invasive, which no one can currently, the alternative to treatment is the Las Vegas approach with ones life.
In the meantime these false prophets will have deprived countless women of the chance for early diagnosis and cure.
Peter Dunner, MD
And until someone can tell us which subset of breast cancer will eventually turn out to be invasive, which no one can currently, the alternative to treatment is the Las Vegas approach with ones life.
In the meantime these false prophets will have deprived countless women of the chance for early diagnosis and cure.
Peter Dunner, MD
Feb 20, 2014 07:59:41 #
Personal experience. My wife went for her yearly mammogram and there was 'something'. Stage 2 breast cancer. They did a lumpectomy followed by 5 weeks of radiation. 5 years later she was declared cancer free. So now, after 14 years she is leading a full and active life. If she had not had the mammogram, who's to know what would have happened.
Feb 20, 2014 08:26:33 #
To be blunt, you have no idea what you're talking about. I have been in the field for 35 years, read the studies, done the analysis and idiots like you do incalculable damage by spreading nonsense. Please list your sources, studies etc. if you are going to continue to blabber on with such nonsense with no scientific basis. This is an answer to those to debunk mammography, a long proven technique for saving lives of women. I refer you to many studies, most notably the Swedish studies and work of Laszlo Tabar in Sweden.
Once more, I refer people to the American College of Radiology web page and their response to the Canadian study. It was deeply flawed in many ways and therefore, the conclusions are flawed. Mammography may not be fool proof but it is the best we have and is NOT supplanted by self exam, ultrasound or thermography(which is highly non-specific and useless). MRI is another very valuable tool but is currently not used for screening.
An important point which is often made is that some cancers don't need to be treated. True. But until we have a test that can reliably show which ones they are, there is no choice but to continue to treat. Same applies to prostate cancer in men which can be indolent for many years and not spread. But short of that, not having tests is like going to Las Vegas-playing the odds which you don't know-the house has all the advantage!
I urge those women who elect not to have mammography to read studies that indicate the life saving benefits of it and not just latch on to a bad study that seems to justify their a priori conclusions. I also pose the question, if it is a question of someone in your family, how much is that life worth? If it is considered too expensive to save few lives, what will happen if your wife or mother or sister hits the bad odds? Will you then feel it is not worth the cost to save a few lives as the Task Force suggested?
Once more, I refer people to the American College of Radiology web page and their response to the Canadian study. It was deeply flawed in many ways and therefore, the conclusions are flawed. Mammography may not be fool proof but it is the best we have and is NOT supplanted by self exam, ultrasound or thermography(which is highly non-specific and useless). MRI is another very valuable tool but is currently not used for screening.
An important point which is often made is that some cancers don't need to be treated. True. But until we have a test that can reliably show which ones they are, there is no choice but to continue to treat. Same applies to prostate cancer in men which can be indolent for many years and not spread. But short of that, not having tests is like going to Las Vegas-playing the odds which you don't know-the house has all the advantage!
I urge those women who elect not to have mammography to read studies that indicate the life saving benefits of it and not just latch on to a bad study that seems to justify their a priori conclusions. I also pose the question, if it is a question of someone in your family, how much is that life worth? If it is considered too expensive to save few lives, what will happen if your wife or mother or sister hits the bad odds? Will you then feel it is not worth the cost to save a few lives as the Task Force suggested?
Feb 20, 2014 15:44:28 #
Los-Angeles-Shooter
Loc: Los Angeles
Psdunner wrote:
I am stunned by the stupidity of educated professi... (show quote)
I am stunned by the closed-mindedness and rigid thinking of the medical establishment. And I am nauseated by its sleazy ties to the drug establishment. I am sickened and disgusted by the ways in which the medical establishment teams up with the drug industry to block research into inexpensive and safe possibilities for treatment, not only of cancer, but of other diseases. I am also dismayed by the astonishing ignorance by most doctors of nutrition, coupled with the establishment's endless pronouncements and libel of non-drug therapies.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.