Study Finds Mammograms Offer Modest Benefit

[Gingersnap]

Study Finds Mammograms Offer Modest Benefit

Published September 23, 2010



LOS ANGELES – Mammograms don't help women over 50 as much as has been believed, new research suggests.

Only a third of the reduced risk of death credited to breast cancer screening is actually deserved — the rest is due to better treatment and greater awareness of the disease, a large study in Norway found.

The research, published in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine, is the latest to show that the benefits of mammography are limited.

"It's not the great lifesaver that people think it is. It's not a magic bullet," said Georgetown University researcher Dr. Jeanne Mandelblatt who was not involved in the study.

Mandelblatt headed six teams that helped shape the new mammogram guidelines issued last year by an influential government task force. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concluded that women at average risk for breast cancer don't need mammograms in their 40s and should get one just every two years starting at 50.

The World Health Organization estimates that mammograms reduce the breast cancer death rate by 25 percent in women over 50. Other groups put the figure at 15 to 23 percent.

The latest study found that while mammograms cut the risk of dying, the benefit was disappointingly low. Women who were screened had a 10 percent lower risk of death from breast cancer, but only a third of that reduction was due to screening itself.

Some 2,500 women would have to be regularly screened over 10 years to save one life from breast cancer, Dr. H. Gilbert Welch of Dartmouth Medical School noted in an accompanying editorial.

In the study, scientists were able to tease out the benefits of mammography by studying Norway's breast cancer screening program, which began as a pilot in 1996 and later expanded to the entire country. As part of the national screening program, teams of doctors were set up in every county to treat any breast cancer cases that did occur, whether they were found by mammograms or other ways.

(snip)

Among women in the screening group, the breast cancer death rate declined by 7.2 deaths per 100,000 people compared with women in the decade before the screening program started. The death rate in the non-screening group fell by 4.8 deaths per 100,000 people compared with its historical counterpart.

That means that mammography reduced mortality by only 2.4 deaths per 100,000 people — a third of the total risk of death.

Fox News

[Calypso Jones]

and did they address the risk of yearly mammography and the exposure to xray that often. I think that would be an eye opening study.

[Gingersnap]

and did they address the risk of yearly mammography and the exposure to xray that often. I think that would be an eye opening study.

I think some researchers are starting to do that. I know there is beginning to be a discussion about ductal carcinoma in situ. This is the most common form breast cancer and it may also be the most over-treated. Years ago my BFF had a double mastectomy because of this diagnosis. Today, people are starting to question whether it should treated at all if stays stable. :(

[lacarnut]

I think this is just an effort by the government to reduce health care costs. Reduction of mammograms is bad medicne in my opinion. As far as radiation is concerned, I have been subjected to radiation from the sun for many years and also worked as a radiographer.

[Gingersnap]

I think this is just an effort by the government to reduce health care costs. Reduction of mammograms is bad medicne in my opinion. As far as radiation is concerned, I have been subjected to radiation from the sun for many years and also worked as a radiographer.

I'm as paranoid as anybody but this particular case seems to be a legitimate deal. One of the problems with breast cancer 'awareness" has been perpetuating the myth that early detection is solely responsible for the drop in breast cancer deaths. It isn't. Better treatment options have reduced deaths. Even with relentless mammograms, most cancerous tumors are detected by the victim during the ordinary course of daily life - not through self-examination or medical breast examinations.

The flip-side of aggressive screening is that a lot women have disfiguring surgery to remove lumps when needle biopsies are inconclusive. Just as bad is the anxiety that many women endure for weeks or months before a mammogram.

[noonwitch]

I think this is just an effort by the government to reduce health care costs. Reduction of mammograms is bad medicne in my opinion. As far as radiation is concerned, I have been subjected to radiation from the sun for many years and also worked as a radiographer.

I don't know, I'm not a doctor or a medical researcher. If the statistics hold up on subsequent studies, it may translate to having a mammogram less frequently than is currently recommended, but doctors probably won't do away with the screening completely.

[lacarnut]

I don't know, I'm not a doctor or a medical researcher. If the statistics hold up on subsequent studies, it may translate to having a mammogram less frequently than is currently recommended, but doctors probably won't do away with the screening completely.

With the advent of Obamacare, I am afraid we will have other studies that will state other expensive tests are not needed as frequently. Cancer victims who want to have a MRI who do not have any advanced symptoms are being denied coverage. This sort of crap is coming down the pike. Cutting costs will be the name of the game by these bureaucrats.