In Major Shift, New Guidelines Scale Back Breast Cancer Screenings For Younger Women
Source: Washington Post
By Ariana Eunjung Cha October 20 at 12:23 PM
New guidelines for mammograms released Tuesday by the American Cancer Society represent a significant step back from the aggressive early and universal screenings the country began 18 years ago.
The changes -- which include raising the age that a woman of average risk begin regular screening from 40 to 45 -- are a recognition of the growing concern that the benefits of mammograms may have been oversold as well as the anxiety and needless treatments caused by overdiagnosis and false positives from the tests.
Richard Wender, a member of the breast cancer guideline panel and a former president of the ACS, said that the new recommendations confirm that mammography is the most important thing a woman can do to reduce her chance of dying of breast cancer but that they provide a more personalized and tailored approach.
Over the past couple of years, there has been so much confusion that some women and some clinicians have really lost confidence in mammography. We hope this extraordinary and thorough review will calm that worry, Wender said.
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/10/20/new-breast-cancer-screening-guidelines-take-more-conservative-approach-recognizing-need-to-balance-benefits-and-harms/
still_one
(92,181 posts)criteria from 40 to 45 in women who do not have a history of breast cancer in their family won't poise any significant risk I suspect.
Downwinder
(12,869 posts)women by not detecting until they are older.
irisblue
(32,969 posts)as well as the hospitals who own them, Radiologists who read the films, Mammographers who do the films and set up for the biopsies, a ripple effect thru the health care delivery system.
flamingdem
(39,313 posts)Excess radiation is a bad idea in my opinion.
In general better methods of detection should be developed.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)It's a numbers game. The National Academy of Sciences released a study in 2012 estimating that roughly 2800 breast cancer cases each year are the result of medical radiation (mammography being one of the primary culprits). If early mammography saves 500 women a year by detecting cancer early, but causes 1000 new cases a year due to the radiation levels required by the test, then is the test really worthwhile?
And that's where the numbers game comes in. What percentage of those 2800 test-caused cancer cases involved women under 40? What percentage will be treatable? What percentage of the younger cancer cases will be treatable, and what percentage will die anyway? At what point does the math make sense, so that the overall number of women SAVED by early mammography exceeds the overall number of women killed by it?
ON EDIT:
The actual study info, in case anyone wants verification: http://iom.nationalacademies.org/Reports/2011/Breast-Cancer-and-the-Environment-A-Life-Course-Approach.aspx, http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2015/02/can-mammograms-cause-cancer/index.htm
Lychee2
(405 posts)http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/health/07prostate.html
They are trying to cut medical costs by getting rid of these tests (PSA, mammograms, etc.)
Not a good idea. These tests save lives.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)wow. nice try though. did you think that would work?
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/cancer/us-panel-clarifies-mammogram-advice-n345106
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)The farther you are from menopause the higher the risk of false positives.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)I guess I know which they find most important.
840high
(17,196 posts)I was 40.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)It makes me ill.