Mammogram screenings don't reduce cancer death rates, study finds

[Celebration]

link

Yearly mammography screenings for women ages 40 to 59 do not reduce breast cancer deaths, even though they make a diagnosis of illness more likely, according to a long-term study of nearly 90,000 Canadian women.

The research, published Tuesday in the British Medical Journal, is the latest in a series of studies that question the value of annual breast X-rays for pre-menopausal women and whether too many women are being "overdiagnosed" by the popular test.

"We found absolutely no benefit in terms of reduction of deaths from the use of mammography," said study leader Dr. Anthony Miller, an epidemiologist at the University of Toronto's Dalla Lana School of Public Health.

The controversial finding is unlikely to trigger an immediate change in national screening policies, although it will enliven an already heated debate over screening. Experts have been arguing the merits of breast X-rays since 2009, when a government panel recommended that most women under 50 could safely skip the test. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force determined that the chances that a 40-year-old woman would be diagnosed with invasive breast cancer in the next 10 years was 1.44% and that her odds of dying from it were just 0.19%.

[unblock]

1. careful, that is NOT exactly what this study shows!

it says that annual mammograms aren't better than annual physical breast examinations.

it doesn't say that mammograms aren't better than doing nothing.


it does NOT mean you can skip going to the doctor.

[Paper Roses]

2. Interesting...I just got notice that I am due again for a mammogram.

BUT: At 71, I wonder if this is really necessary. I had one a year ago, thankfully all is fine. I have other health issues. I doubt a mammogram at my age accomplishes much.
I am told that there is no need for a pap smear every year at my age. I am of the opinion that, for me, the mammogram is not necessary every year. I would not have major surgery if something was discovered. The thought of chemo and radiation at my age is not something I could tolerate.

Just my opinion.

[bemildred]

3. What the study says, more or less, is that your odds are about the same either way.

Maybe the mammogram will extend your life, maybe it will be irrelevant, and it might cause something itself. But statistically, it's a wash.

[SheilaT]

8. Age 71? Yearly mammograms?

Really? Unless you have some very high risk that makes this a good idea, you are at far higher risk of developing breast cancer from the radiation, than getting breast cancer anyway.

Plus, you are saying you wouldn't have surgery. So why in god's name are you having mammograms?

I also understand that past menopause there's no need for pap smears. At all.

[MannyGoldstein]

4. Which is the same thing that's been found in every study i've seen for decades.

I'm a big fan of screening tests that work. But in the case of mammograms and PSA test, they seem to simply drive up cost and cause a lot of collateral damage without reducing the death rate.

They also make a hell of a lot of money for the medico-industrial complex. Hmm...

[phylny]

5. My husband and I are the exception to this rule.

My husband had prostate cancer - and ABSOLUTELY no symptoms. His routine PSA found a rising level, and fast-forward, he had an aggressive cancer that would have killed him in two years if he hadn't had surgery. That was five years ago, and he's still here.

I'm 55 and just had DCIS diagnosed via a mammogram. There is no way I or any doctor could possibly feel it because it was microscopically small. I have a family history of breast cancer, and my mother died of inflammatory cancer of the breast at age 57.

So, study schmudy, I'll keep having my mammograms.

[Celebration]

6. I wonder if there is a subgroup that could benefit, statistically

Specifically, those with a family history of breast cancer.............

[phylny]

7. It could be.

I figure I'd rather know than not know

[hedgehog]

9. My elderly mother had a masectomy following a mammogram - I don't know the details

because she was a very, very private person. She died about two years later, and I think the stress of the operation shortened her life. I will always wonder if the surgery was needed.

[liberal_at_heart]

10. I don't care what these studies say. The survival rate for breast cancer is much better than it

was when my mom was diagnosed in '76 and early detection and treatment is key to that. Also just the fact that women are so empowered and public about it now I think lends to higher survival rates. When my mom had breast cancer talking about it was still taboo. I doubt women will stop getting mammograms just because a few studies says there is no benefit. I have had a double preventative mastectomy so I don't need mammograms anymore but before I had the surgery I certainly did get mammograms and if my daughter tests positive for the gene she will be getting screenings as well.

[HuckleB]

11. A thorough assessment of the study and what it means.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-canadian-national-breast-screening-study-ignites-a-new-round-in-the-mammography-wars/

[bemildred]

12. +1.

I approve, Mr. Gorski can do the math.

Edit: fascinating comments, too.