PERSONAL HEALTH  
comments_imageCOMMENTS: 6

Saving Women From Breast Cancer: Are Mammograms Really the Answer?

New research suggests that mammograms may lead to the over-treatment of some breast diseases while missing lethal cancers. Is there a better answer?
October 21, 2009  |  
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Personal Health headlines via email.

 
 
Advertisement
 

EDITOR'S NOTE: Since AlterNet edited this piece, a new study was released by The Journal of the American Medical Association that also raises concerns about the efficacy of screenings to definitively detect breast cancer. The study, taken together with those cited here in Naomi Freundlich's analysis, prompted a stunning shift in thinking at the American Cancer Society.  According to the New York Times, "The American Cancer Society, which has long been a staunch defender of most cancer screening, is now saying that the benefits of detecting many cancers, especially breast and prostate, have been overstated."

October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month and the sea of pink has reached tidal-wave proportions. Every conceivable product from yogurt to running shoes to breakfast cereal now sports the ubiquitous pink ribbon. This month some NFL players will wear pink cleats, still more will don helmets festooned with pink ribbons, and legions of supporters are participating in walks, runs and bike rides to raise money for breast cancer causes. The collective spirit has been awakened; the American public wants progress on breast cancer!

But besides being a great marketing tool for selling "things," what, ultimately, is the purpose of National Breast Cancer Awareness Month? The concept was introduced in 1985 by AstraZeneca, the giant international pharmaceutical company that makes the breast cancer drugs tamoxifen and Arimidex. The company's aim was to promote regular mammograms as the most effective weapon in fighting breast cancer. It has since enlisted the support of such venerable groups as the American Cancer Society, the American College of Radiology, the National Cancer Institute and the Center for Disease Control, among others in this campaign.

This mission to promote mammography -- helped by a massive media onslaught that features the likes of Rachael Ray and Dr. Phil—gets more ambitious every year. And the calls for women, from age 40 until they can no longer hobble to an imaging center, to get yearly screenings get more urgent as well.

Here is the American Cancer Society's current clarion call for screening:

Current evidence supporting mammograms is even stronger than in the past. Recent evidence has confirmed that mammograms offer substantial benefit for women starting in their 40s. Women can feel confident about the benefits associated with regular mammograms for finding cancer early.

Wait a minute. Is this really true? In April, I wrote in HealthBeat that researchers at the Nordic Cochrane Centre in Denmark and elsewhere had raised serious questions about the benefits of mammography, especially in women under 50 and over 70. The researchers found that:

"For every 2,000 women [age 50-69] invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will have her life prolonged. In addition, 10 healthy women who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be diagnosed as breast cancer patients and will be treated unnecessarily. It is thus not clear whether screening does more good than harm.

In July, researchers from this same center published another study in the British Medical Journal that attempted to determine the level of "over-diagnosis" (the detection of cancers that will not cause death or symptoms) that can be attributed to wide-scale screening mammography programs. The researchers studied programs in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Sweden, and Norway. Their findings: one in three breast cancers were "over-diagnosed" in publicly organized mammography screening programs.

What this means is that one out of three cancer diagnoses turned out to be lesions that either went away on their own or otherwise never progressed. In some cases, patients would have died of something else before their symptoms progressed.

Meanwhile, the women who received these diagnoses likely went on to have surgery to remove the lesion or the entire breast, radiation and chemotherapy. This seems a substantial cost—both in terms of a woman's psychological and physical health and in terms of health care dollars -- for questionable gains.

In February, two dozen researchers, physicians and patient advocates signed a letter published in the Times of London, imploring the National Health Service to rewrite its information pamphlet to include the risks of over-diagnosis and over-treatment that women face with mammography. The model is a pamphlet written by Peter C. Gotzsche, the director of the Nordic Cochrane Center and other professionals that also appears in the British Medical Journal.


Naomi Freundlich is a patient advocate at the Century Foundation who writes regularly for HealthBeat.
Email
Print
Share
Post on reddit
Post on stumbleupon
Post on facebook
Post on digg
Post on twitter
Post on delicious
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest Personal Health headlines via email


Comments are closed-

IS THERE A BETTER WAY? PROBABLY
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Oct 21, 2009 8:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the meantime we use what we have. It's not perfect but at some point decision making is reduced to gambling. The numbers vary so much among various groups of women that it's prudent to use what we have until something better comes long. If one out a thousand divers ride around on bald tires without incident, should we all follow suit? The numbers would change instanly. Statistics are temporary. There's too much at stake to be rebellious about how we diagnose and treat breast cancer. When there's a better way, we'll take it. ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Diet, genetics, and family history...
Posted by: franklyspanking on Oct 21, 2009 10:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...should play major roles in when females begin observation regimens for breast cancer.

Of course mammograms aren't a one shot-solution, but the only practical way at this point to 'cure' malignant solid tumors is to have them 100% out before they metastasize. Hence the profound empahsis on early detection, which has led to some recent, positive milestones regarding new cancer diagnoses and number of deaths.

That said, you own your health, and it's really up to the individual to decide what's appropriate, given the information available.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Bill
Posted by: mycuz on Oct 26, 2009 8:02 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find almost laughable that we still look at the American Cancer Society as a model for cancer information. When it comes to mammography they have more lies and misinformation on their web site. They say that the ionizing radiation from a mammagram is the euivalent of a cross country flight. An absolute lie. They fail to mention that ionizing radiation is a known cause of cancer. They fail to mention that ionizing radiation is cumulative. There is a better detection tool not mentioned and that is thermography. The ACS should be renamed American Pro-Cancer Society. They have fought all efforts to link environmental issues to cancer. They attack any non-traditional treatment as quackery.
recently when I went to their web site they had a big article about a man the died after taking hydrazine sulfate purchased on the internet. When I wrote them about this anecdotal report, and asked the prior condition of the man, they did not respond but the article was pulled from the site. Additionally they are the richest charity in the world and every charitable rating organization has rated them poorly. The last thing is the number of radiologists and equipment makers on the ACS board.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

THERE ARE OPTIONS TO MAMMOGRAPHY
Posted by: smf1403 on Oct 26, 2009 11:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mammography is not the only solution for detecting cancer.

Thermography is a safer alternative with less or no radiation.

Eating a vegetable based whole foods diet and exercise, reducing or eliminating toxic cleaners and personal products are preventative.

The cancer societies know the cure for cancer but if they tell you they will be out of business.

Prevention is the cure. Mammography may diagnose cancer or give you a false-positive leading to surgery, further radiation and chemotherapy which enriches hospitals, doctors, etc. but may not cure you.

Eat organic, use vinegar, baking soda and water to clean your house and use deodorants, moisturizers, shampoos, etc free of harmful parabens, aluminums, sodium lauryl sulfates.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alternet Comments:

Comments are closed-

IS THERE A BETTER WAY? PROBABLY
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Oct 21, 2009 8:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the meantime we use what we have. It's not perfect but at some point decision making is reduced to gambling. The numbers vary so much among various groups of women that it's prudent to use what we have until something better comes long. If one out a thousand divers ride around on bald tires without incident, should we all follow suit? The numbers would change instanly. Statistics are temporary. There's too much at stake to be rebellious about how we diagnose and treat breast cancer. When there's a better way, we'll take it. ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Diet, genetics, and family history...
Posted by: franklyspanking on Oct 21, 2009 10:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...should play major roles in when females begin observation regimens for breast cancer.

Of course mammograms aren't a one shot-solution, but the only practical way at this point to 'cure' malignant solid tumors is to have them 100% out before they metastasize. Hence the profound empahsis on early detection, which has led to some recent, positive milestones regarding new cancer diagnoses and number of deaths.

That said, you own your health, and it's really up to the individual to decide what's appropriate, given the information available.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Bill
Posted by: mycuz on Oct 26, 2009 8:02 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find almost laughable that we still look at the American Cancer Society as a model for cancer information. When it comes to mammography they have more lies and misinformation on their web site. They say that the ionizing radiation from a mammagram is the euivalent of a cross country flight. An absolute lie. They fail to mention that ionizing radiation is a known cause of cancer. They fail to mention that ionizing radiation is cumulative. There is a better detection tool not mentioned and that is thermography. The ACS should be renamed American Pro-Cancer Society. They have fought all efforts to link environmental issues to cancer. They attack any non-traditional treatment as quackery.
recently when I went to their web site they had a big article about a man the died after taking hydrazine sulfate purchased on the internet. When I wrote them about this anecdotal report, and asked the prior condition of the man, they did not respond but the article was pulled from the site. Additionally they are the richest charity in the world and every charitable rating organization has rated them poorly. The last thing is the number of radiologists and equipment makers on the ACS board.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

THERE ARE OPTIONS TO MAMMOGRAPHY
Posted by: smf1403 on Oct 26, 2009 11:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mammography is not the only solution for detecting cancer.

Thermography is a safer alternative with less or no radiation.

Eating a vegetable based whole foods diet and exercise, reducing or eliminating toxic cleaners and personal products are preventative.

The cancer societies know the cure for cancer but if they tell you they will be out of business.

Prevention is the cure. Mammography may diagnose cancer or give you a false-positive leading to surgery, further radiation and chemotherapy which enriches hospitals, doctors, etc. but may not cure you.

Eat organic, use vinegar, baking soda and water to clean your house and use deodorants, moisturizers, shampoos, etc free of harmful parabens, aluminums, sodium lauryl sulfates.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

 
Advertisement
From The Blog
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS