SteveR wrote:
Gotta wonder, of those 200,000 who were diagnosed, how many were diagnosed as a result of a mammogram, and how many survived breast cancer because of early detection as a result? Is the study making an unwarranted assumption? It says that deaths due to breast cancer have not decreased. They then make the assumption that mammograms are thus not necessary. That's a logical leap that is not scientifically proven. Could there be other factors that are keeping the death rate up?
I think the issue is mammograms that use radiation vs other types of screening...it's not the case of no screening at all. I, for one, am very happy to have had a routine mammogram where a small tumor was found far back near my chest wall. It would not have been felt by physical screening for a very long and potentially fatal time. So until everyone wants to sign up for the much costlier ultrasound I'm happy with taking the chance with mammographies.