Mammography Plummets for Women in their 40's... and will cause needless deaths
Jun/Saturday/2011 11:30 AM Filed in: Breast
cancer
After reading a recent interview with NBC's Nancy
Snyderman, seeming to champion the decline in
mammograms and new USPSTF guidelines, I am outraged
once again. How is it possible in this day and time
that a Chief Medical Editor for a major news
organization can share such inaccurate, potentially
life threatening information to millions of women?
Even the government backed down from their own
guidelines soon after the backlash from experts
slammed them. Sadly, most women will read the
information and simply believe it must be true-since
it is coming from a beautiful, well-spoken, TV
medical editor/doctor.
Why wouldn't a woman in such a powerful position in sharing information to the masses seek the guidance of leaders in the field of breast imaging and breast disease? Why, why, why??? There really is NO confusion among experts-because the research is there. Please read the posted comments from Dr. Dan Kopans, from Harvard, one of the top experts in the field of breast imaging, who shares my same outrage following the story (though in much more professional language). I am sharing it here, but will link to it, so you can see the story and other comments.
For those women who believe that mammography is some kind of conspiracy of men to harm women or other sinister plot that serves to harm you, please be informed. There are many dedicated men and women in the field of breast imaging who are trying to save women's lives-their own and their mothers, daughters, sisters, and friends.
I'll be the first to tell you that mammography is not perfect, but it is the first step and only step we have in getting further imaging (like ultrasound, MRI, or other technology). Researchers are constantly striving to find better screening technologies, but they all agree that we must start with mammography (and at age 40). To get more information and facts about breast imaging (including myths or imaging that doesn't quite measure up) you can go to www.acr.org or www.mammographysaveslives.org. Please don't risk your life by sinking into complacency because these harmful guidelines give you an out to not take the time or effort to be screened.
With love to all women and those who love them...
Pam
Read Dan Kopens' comments here below, that come from the article, "Mammograms plummet among women under 50:
"It is unfortunate when misinformation gets perpetuated. This is the case with regard to screening mammography and Dr. Snyderman's comments on the United States Preventive Services Task Force screening guidelines. The USPSTF "recommended against" routine screening for women ages 40-49 and that women ages 50-74 could be screened every two years. Dr. Snyderman suggestion that this was based on detailed scientific analysis is simply incorrect.
1. The USPSTF was not comprised of experts. There were no radiologists with expertise in breast cancer screening on the USPSTF. There were no breast surgeons on the USPSTF. There were no medical or radiation oncologists on the Task Force. In fact, there was no one with any expertise in caring for women with breast cancer.
2. There are no data that show that any of parameters of screening change abruptly at the age of 50 or any other age. The use of the age of 50 as a threshold for screening has no scientific support. This is so apparent, that its continued use as a, scientifically based, threshold is simply lying to women.
3. Dr. Snyderman is incorrect. The data for screening women ages 40-49 are as strong as for screening women ages 50 and over.
4. The USPSTF and Dr. Snyderman ignored much of the scientific evidence (1).
5. The USPSTF own computer analyses show that the most lives are saved by screening annually beginning at the age of 40. Hendrick and Helvie (2) showed that if the USPSTF guidelines are followed for a group of women ages 30-39 today, 65-100,000 lives would be lost that could have been saved by annual screening beginning at the age of 40. The USPSTF made the subjective decision that they (the Task Force) did not think screening women ages 40-49 was worth it.
6. There are no data from the randomized, controlled trials (RCT) to support screening based on risk. None of the RCT stratified by risk so there is no proof that screening based on risk will save any lives.
7. Since at least 75% of women who are diagnosed each year with breast cancer are not at increased risk, screening only high risk women will miss the vast majority of women who develop breast cancer.
8. All women (and men) should be informed of the risks and benefits of any medical intervention. It is nonsense to suggest that women ages 40-49 may want to understand these pros and cons, but somehow this changes at the age of 50.
Those who report to and advise the public need to be very clear on the facts, particularly when lives are at stake.
Daniel B. Kopans, M.D.
Professor of Radiology Harvard Medical School
Senior Radiologist Massachusetts General Hospital
References:
1. Kopans DB. The 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Guidelines Ignore important Scientific Evidence and Should be Revised or Withdrawn. Radiology 2010;256:15-20.
2. Hendrick RE, Helvie MA. United States preventive services task force screening
mammography recommendations: science ignored. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011
Feb;196(2):W112-6."
Why wouldn't a woman in such a powerful position in sharing information to the masses seek the guidance of leaders in the field of breast imaging and breast disease? Why, why, why??? There really is NO confusion among experts-because the research is there. Please read the posted comments from Dr. Dan Kopans, from Harvard, one of the top experts in the field of breast imaging, who shares my same outrage following the story (though in much more professional language). I am sharing it here, but will link to it, so you can see the story and other comments.
For those women who believe that mammography is some kind of conspiracy of men to harm women or other sinister plot that serves to harm you, please be informed. There are many dedicated men and women in the field of breast imaging who are trying to save women's lives-their own and their mothers, daughters, sisters, and friends.
I'll be the first to tell you that mammography is not perfect, but it is the first step and only step we have in getting further imaging (like ultrasound, MRI, or other technology). Researchers are constantly striving to find better screening technologies, but they all agree that we must start with mammography (and at age 40). To get more information and facts about breast imaging (including myths or imaging that doesn't quite measure up) you can go to www.acr.org or www.mammographysaveslives.org. Please don't risk your life by sinking into complacency because these harmful guidelines give you an out to not take the time or effort to be screened.
With love to all women and those who love them...
Pam
Read Dan Kopens' comments here below, that come from the article, "Mammograms plummet among women under 50:
"It is unfortunate when misinformation gets perpetuated. This is the case with regard to screening mammography and Dr. Snyderman's comments on the United States Preventive Services Task Force screening guidelines. The USPSTF "recommended against" routine screening for women ages 40-49 and that women ages 50-74 could be screened every two years. Dr. Snyderman suggestion that this was based on detailed scientific analysis is simply incorrect.
1. The USPSTF was not comprised of experts. There were no radiologists with expertise in breast cancer screening on the USPSTF. There were no breast surgeons on the USPSTF. There were no medical or radiation oncologists on the Task Force. In fact, there was no one with any expertise in caring for women with breast cancer.
2. There are no data that show that any of parameters of screening change abruptly at the age of 50 or any other age. The use of the age of 50 as a threshold for screening has no scientific support. This is so apparent, that its continued use as a, scientifically based, threshold is simply lying to women.
3. Dr. Snyderman is incorrect. The data for screening women ages 40-49 are as strong as for screening women ages 50 and over.
4. The USPSTF and Dr. Snyderman ignored much of the scientific evidence (1).
5. The USPSTF own computer analyses show that the most lives are saved by screening annually beginning at the age of 40. Hendrick and Helvie (2) showed that if the USPSTF guidelines are followed for a group of women ages 30-39 today, 65-100,000 lives would be lost that could have been saved by annual screening beginning at the age of 40. The USPSTF made the subjective decision that they (the Task Force) did not think screening women ages 40-49 was worth it.
6. There are no data from the randomized, controlled trials (RCT) to support screening based on risk. None of the RCT stratified by risk so there is no proof that screening based on risk will save any lives.
7. Since at least 75% of women who are diagnosed each year with breast cancer are not at increased risk, screening only high risk women will miss the vast majority of women who develop breast cancer.
8. All women (and men) should be informed of the risks and benefits of any medical intervention. It is nonsense to suggest that women ages 40-49 may want to understand these pros and cons, but somehow this changes at the age of 50.
Those who report to and advise the public need to be very clear on the facts, particularly when lives are at stake.
Daniel B. Kopans, M.D.
Professor of Radiology Harvard Medical School
Senior Radiologist Massachusetts General Hospital
References:
1. Kopans DB. The 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Guidelines Ignore important Scientific Evidence and Should be Revised or Withdrawn. Radiology 2010;256:15-20.
2. Hendrick RE, Helvie MA. United States preventive services task force screening
mammography recommendations: science ignored. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011
Feb;196(2):W112-6."