'Too much mammography'

February 21, 2014

Doctors tell many American women that they need a yearly mammogram to screen for breast cancer. Early detection saves lives, women are told. But evidence has been mounting for years that mammograms do not reduce the risk of dying from breast cancer.

Last week, the British Medical Journal released a blockbuster long-term study of nearly 90,000 Canadian women. It concluded that yearly mammography screenings for women 40 to 59 do not reduce breast cancer deaths, though they make a diagnosis of breast cancer more likely. That is, the study found that regular mammography leads to more cancers detected but does not lead to fewer women dying of breast cancer.

"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.

A BMJ editorial bluntly concluded: "Too much mammography."

It won't shock you to know that many people vehemently disagree. The American College of Radiology and the Society of Breast Imaging called the BMJ study "an incredibly misleading analysis" based on a "deeply flawed and widely discredited" previous study. Critics said the Canadian study used outdated equipment and faulty methods that erroneously made mammograms look ineffective.

It's awfully difficult for the public to try to referee this continuing medical debate. What we know: Breast cancer is a fearsome disease. Studies have shown that mammography saves lives. But it also can lead to overdiagnosis, prompting women to undergo unnecessary and potentially harmful treatments. Some tumors are so aggressive that still doesn't save lives. Some cancers progress so slowly that they would never kill.

And remember: The Canadian researchers aren't the first to raise red flags about widespread mammography screenings.

In 2009, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force set off a firestorm when it recommended most women forgo routine mammograms in their 40s and then test every other year instead of every year. An all-star lineup of doctor's groups and cancer organizations howled that the guidelines would deprive women of a lifesaving test.

One of the panel members on that task force report, Dr. Russell Harris of the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, tells us the latest BMJ study "shows that if mammography makes a difference, it can't be very big. If there were a knock-your-socks-off difference, we would have seen it in this study" because it covers a large number of women over a long time span.

This latest study won't quiet the mammogram controversy. Nor will it dissuade many women from the annual test. In 2010, Americans spent an estimated $7.8 billion for mammography screening, according to a recent study in the Annals of Internal Medicine. The federal government says mammograms are so valuable as a preventive measure that Obamacare requires that they be covered free by insurers.

Many Americans believe that when it comes to screenings, more is always better. More scans, more tests, more detection. That's not necessarily true. Billions of dollars are wasted every year by Americans for unnecessary scans, biopsies and tests. More scans mean more false positive results, which stoke anxiety and prompt even more tests.

Bottom line: What we said in 2009 still holds. Many women know they have a higher than average chance of getting , because of family history, a known gene mutation, past exposure to radiation or other risk factors. These women know they have to be vigilant about screening. Others are comfortable with less rigorous monitoring, and the numbers suggest they can afford to relax a little. Some aren't confident where they fall, and many are anxious about that uncertainty. It's not a one-size-fits-all question - it never was - and the conflicting messages within the medical community can be maddening.

Five years later, have reason to be even more confused and frustrated. All the more reason to follow one simple guideline: The next time your doctor recommends a routine mammogram, ask her why.

Explore further: Annual screening does not cut breast cancer deaths, Canadian study suggests

Related Stories

Annual screening does not cut breast cancer deaths, Canadian study suggests

February 11, 2014
Annual screening in women aged 40-59 does not reduce mortality from breast cancer beyond that of physical examination or usual care, concludes a 25-year study from Canada published in BMJ today.

FDA warns against nipple test for breast cancer screening

December 14, 2013
(HealthDay)—A new test marketed as an alternative to a mammogram for breast cancer detection is not an effective screening TOOL, U.S. health officials say.

Despite new recommendations, women in 40s continue to get routine mammograms at same rate

May 15, 2013
Women in their 40s continue to undergo routine breast cancer screenings despite national guidelines recommending otherwise, according to new Johns Hopkins research.

New national poll: 89 percent of women said mammograms vital to their health

September 27, 2011
According to a recent poll of 1,000 American voters conducted for the American College of Radiology, nearly 9-in-10 women reported that having a regular mammogram gave them a feeling of control over their own health care. ...

Doctors, women should spend more time discussing mammograms

August 9, 2011
Due to changing guidelines concerning when and how often they should first be screened for breast cancer with mammograms, many women are confused. The American Cancer Society recommends women 40 years and older get a mammogram ...

Mammography is 'imperfect' test

October 14, 2011
For women today, turning 40 often brings birthday cake and candles. But it also brings a question: Should I get a mammogram?

Recommended for you

Obesity both feeds tumors and helps immunotherapy kill cancer

November 12, 2018
A groundbreaking new study by UC Davis researchers has uncovered why obesity both fuels cancer growth and allows blockbuster new immunotherapies to work better against those same tumors.

Spread of deadly eye cancer halted in cells and animals

November 12, 2018
By comparing genetic sequences in the eye tumors of children whose cancers spread with tumors that didn't spread, Johns Hopkins Medicine researchers report new evidence that a domino effect in cells is responsible for the ...

Scientists shine new light on link between obesity and cancer

November 12, 2018
Scientists have made a major discovery that shines a new, explanatory light on the link between obesity and cancer. Their research confirms why the body's immune surveillance systems—led by cancer-fighting Natural Killer ...

Two-pronged device enables maverick immune cells to identify and kill cancers

November 12, 2018
Immune cells called Gamma Delta T cells can act independently to identify and kill cancer cells, defying the conventional view of the immune system, reveals new research from the Francis Crick Institute and King's College ...

Research brings personalized medicine to treat leukemia one step closer

November 12, 2018
Scientists at the University of Birmingham have revealed the roles that different types of gene mutations play in causing blood cancers in a study that was the culmination of a decade's research.

Cancer stem cells get energy from protein, and it's proving to be their Achilles' heel

November 12, 2018
Think of energy metabolism like a party popper: Ripping something apart releases a bang. Most of your cells rip apart sugar to release the "bang" of energy. Sometimes they rip apart fats, and in a pinch, cells can even metabolize ...

0 comments

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.