News on Health & Science

Mammogram Guidelines: What You Need to Know

[amazon_link asins=’016045316X’ template=’ProductCarousel’ store=’finmeacur-20′ marketplace=’US’ link_id=’f9eac28d-c510-11e7-a149-d1e58b17a042′]

[amazon_link asins=’1619845385,B076J9QJKX,B00EJWYG7S,B01M3SD8P7,B075X3KRFF,B01M0AG01N’ template=’ProductCarousel’ store=’finmeacur-20′ marketplace=’US’ link_id=’13fbbbb6-c511-11e7-a573-6ba8d0df0a12′]

If the brouhaha following a government advisory panel’s recent change in breast-cancer-screening recommendations has proved anything, it is that even modern medicine does not rely on statistics, scientific facts and clinical outcomes alone.


That’s the hard lesson that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) learned when it changed course on its recommendations for mammography screening and advised women to delay having the screen until they are 50, rather than beginning evaluations at 40, as they have recommended previously. Over the past two decades, annual mammograms for women over 40 had become a standard of preventive care in the U.S. — right up there with daily exercise, quitting smoking and getting a flu shot.
(Read “Understanding the Health-Care Debate: Your Indispensable Guide”)

But after taking a more in-depth look at the numbers, the task force decided that the risks of mammography for women in their 40s do not outweigh the small benefit that the screens provide. On top of that, the panel recommended that doctors no longer urge women to perform monthly breast self-exams at home, citing a lack of scientific evidence to support that they save lives.

Immediately, almost every major cancer organization and physicians’ group — including the American Cancer Society, the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation and the American College of Ostetricians and Gynecologists — questioned the new recommendations. So did women. “I’m just shocked, absolutely shocked,” says Deana Rich, a clinical-research associate in Seattle. The 47-year-old has no family history of breast cancer but has been dutifully getting an annual mammogram for the past seven years in order to reduce her risk of dying from the disease. One of her friends recently received a breast-cancer diagnosis, and several other friends are breast-cancer survivors; all of them learned of their disease thanks to a routine mammogram they got during their 40s. “I can’t imagine what would have happened if they didn’t have that. The cancer would have just had more time to grow,” says Rich.
(See 10 players in health-care reform.)

That is the biggest worry boiling up among doctors and women across the country — that a procedure that undeniably reduces the risk of breast cancer is no longer being recommended for millions of women. Another worry: will insurance begin denying coverage of breast-cancer screens in women under 50 who want them? The Obama Administration quickly disputed that notion, as well as the suggestion that the panel’s advisory was a government strategy to cut costs by rationing health care. “The U.S. Preventive Task Force is an outside, independent panel of doctors and scientists who make recommendations,” said Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius in a statement. “They do not set federal policy, and they don’t determine what services are covered by the Federal Government.”

Sebelius added that private insurance companies were unlikely to change their policies and that mammograms are a valuable lifesaving tool. She advised women to “keep doing what you have been doing for years. Talk to your doctor about your individual history, ask questions and make the decision that is right for you.”

Indeed, the mammogram is one of doctors’ most powerful tools against breast cancer. There is a robust body of clinical-trial evidence showing that routine screening reduces breast-cancer deaths; the task force attests to that as well. But while everybody, to varying extent, agrees that mammograms are beneficial, what’s less clear is the age at which routine mammography screening should begin. That depends in part on breast cancer risk, which increases with age — for every 100,000 women, the risk of developing breast cancer is 1 in 69 in women in their 40s, 1 in 38 in women in their 50s, and 1 in 27 among women in their 60s.

Consensus on this question would be helpful because professional cancer organizations, cancer hospitals and doctors base their screening guidelines on the advice of nationally recognized groups — like the American Cancer Society and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (or NCCN, a coalition of National Cancer Institute–designated hospitals), and the USPSTF. Neither the ACS nor the NCCN intends to modify its guidelines for yearly breast-cancer screening in all healthy women over 40.

So how exhaustive was the task force’s deliberation? How definitive are its guidelines? And which set of recommendations should women follow?

The USPSTF, a volunteer group of 16 health professionals, is often considered to issue the most conservative recommendations compared with other national groups. In 2002, for instance, it called for breast-cancer screening every one or two years for women ages 40 to 49, while other guidelines advocated yearly tests. For its updated 2009 recommendations, the USPSTF analyzed clinical trials on the benefits of mammography — much of that same research was also evaluated for the task force’s 2002 decision — while folding in new data on the risks and harms of screening. Those risks include false positive results, over-diagnosis, patient anxiety and unnecessary biopsies, tests and doctor’s visits.

The panel also commissioned computer-modeling studies that weighed the benefits of routine screening (reduction in death rate) against its risks, depending on the ages of the women being screened and how often they were tested — every year or every other year.

Overall, based on a review of mammography trials, the panel found that having a yearly mammogram screening cuts the risk of breast-cancer death 15% in women ages 40 to 49. That reduction, it should be noted, is relative, not absolute. The absolute risk of breast-cancer death after age 40 is 3% without annual screening, according to the computer models. That means that with routine screening, which leads to a 15% lower risk of death from breast cancer, a woman’s absolute risk drops to 2.6%. Small numbers in either case. Put another way, the panel concluded, the benefit of routine mammograms for women in their 40s is one fewer death for every 1,904 women screened annually for up to a decade.

That benefit increases, however, with the age of the women being screened, as the risk of breast cancer rises: among women 50 to 59, one death is averted for every 1,339 women routinely screened; among women 60 to 69, 377 mammograms would be needed to prevent one death. The task force’s computer models further showed that shifting women’s screening schedule from yearly to once every two years retains 81% of the benefit of screening while reducing the harms like false positives by half.

Combined, the findings led the panel to reverse their 2002 recommendations on mammography, which extended the advice, originally targeting women over 50, to also include women in their 40s. The new recommendations, published in the Nov. 17 issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine, once again leave out the younger women and suggest that those over 50 get screened biennially. But the recommendations do not instruct women under 50 never to get screened, says Dr. Diana Petitti, vice chair of the task force. The new guidelines were meant to trigger and inform discussion between women in their 40s and their doctors about routine screening. “We thought we were saying that the evidence shows that there is this amount of benefit and this amount of potential harm for women in their 40s,” she says. “Which suggests that routine screening is not appropriate. But the word routine clearly got lost.”

Such details were bound to get lost in a heated — and highly politicized — discussion of a topic that is for most women more emotional than medical. Add to that an immediate offensive blitz by some cancer doctors who were concerned that the new guidelines would essentially limit their patients’ options for preventing breast-cancer death. “I am appalled and horrified,” says Dr. David Dershaw, director of breast imaging at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. “We have something that saves lives, and to say we are not going to do it anymore is unconscionable.”

The panel stands by its new recommendations, relying on the data, which simply do not support the benefit of routine screening when balanced with risks, among younger women. The new recommendations are also backed by some prominent physicians, including the cancer surgeon Dr. Susan Love, who agree there’s insufficient data to show that screening under 50 works. The debate, says Dr. Len Lichtenfeld of ACS, is not likely to end soon. “This is the beginning of a discussion that will likely continue vigorously over the next several months, if not years,” he predicts.

But the more immediate issue for many cancer doctors is not that mammograms may work better in some age groups than in others. What worries experts is that the new guidelines could result in fewer women getting screened overall. Already one-third of American women who should be getting annual mammograms do not get screened. Since 1990, the death rate from breast cancer among women under 50 has been declining, 3% each year, in large part because of the expanded screening guidelines. “[The new recommendations] may erode some of the advances we had made in reducing breast-cancer mortality,” says Dr. Therese Bevers, a professor of clinical cancer prevention at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

For Deana Rich’s part, she plans to continue with her annual screenings, even if at some point she ends up paying for them herself. “It’s just too scary not to get mammograms,” she says. “I know it’s not the be all and end all, but it is one screening tool that we do have.”

Source:Health & Science. 20th. Nov. ’09

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Why Mammography is NOT an Effective Breast Cancer Screen

breast cancer, cancer, mammography, cancer screen, thermography, breast thermography

[amazon_link asins=’B0174L3XME,B01MYBNRZ1,B01632P29C,B016J0SAYC,B01MYAK4CM,B01BV6V4S8,B078J68J4S,B075JCF735,B074PQ5ZW3′ template=’ProductCarousel’ store=’finmeacur-20′ marketplace=’US’ link_id=’a90a67c2-139b-11e8-a837-1bf7ecf8a377′]

The most devastating loss of life from breast cancer occurs between the ages of 30 to 50. Fortunately, you have more options available to you today to help detect breast cancer than in the past decades.

Unfortunately, education and awareness of these options and their effectiveness in detecting breast cancer at different stages in life are woefully deficient.

Beyond Mammography

In the first part of the in-depth article linked below, Beyond Mammography, Dr. Len Saputo explores the latest findings on the effectiveness and shortcomings of various detection methods used by the mainstream medical community, including mammography, clinical breast exams, ultrasound, and to a lesser extent, magnetic resonance imaging (MRIs) and PET scans.

The second part goes beyond mammography, exploring a highly advanced but much maligned detection tool for breast cancer — breast thermography.

Breast thermography, which involves using a heat-sensing scanner to detect variations in the temperature of breast tissue, has been around since the 1960s. However, early infrared scanners were not very sensitive, and were insufficiently tested before being put into clinical practice, resulting in misdiagnosed cases.

Modern-day breast thermography boasts vastly improved technology and more extensive scientific clinical research.

In fact, the article references data from major peer review journals and research on more than 300,000 women who have been tested using the technology. Combined with the successes in detecting breast cancer with greater accuracy than other methods, the technology is slowly gaining ground among more progressive practitioners.

About the Author

Dr. Len Saputo, MD, is a graduate of Duke University Medical School, and is the Founder and Director of the Health Medicine Forum, which has hosted and moderated over 350 events. He’s also the Co-founder and Medical Director of the Health Medicine Institute and Health Medicine Center, and runs a private practice in Internal Medicine and Health Medicine.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Health Quaries

Breast Cancer Prevention’s Dirty Little Secret …

[amazon_link asins=’B00NH5AK2S,B0018O8IQA,B000GH0PFM,B000F4WS6A,B00020IDB6,B00CL3XE5M,B000T3OSNS,B00X88U7VI,B000X9WXSU’ template=’ProductCarousel’ store=’finmeacur-20′ marketplace=’US’ link_id=’e41bcbda-200d-11e7-a650-6d85ddb8a8a3′][amazon_link asins=’B015F96O2I,B004TBCT4G,B00IP1E3O0,B01M3PRSSF,B0013OULGA,B01GNZ1F9K,B06XC9M8T5,B003O1Y4C2,B0020MMBWQ’ template=’ProductCarousel’ store=’finmeacur-20′ marketplace=’US’ link_id=’a750e6e2-200d-11e7-bd9b-e12266dd6405′]


If you haven’t yet done so you can claim your FREE REPORT right now that details why conventional medicine stubbornly clings to out-dated ideas of breast cancer detection — despite the fact that the health hazards of mammograms have been reliably demonstrated. Plus, get the scoop on a safer, non-invasive alternative.

Your doctor isn’t telling you about this painless and non-invasive breast cancer screening test that’s been shown to prevent cancer, not just find it. Instead, your doctor probably advises you to undergo mammograms, despite their known health hazards..

While mammograms are highly touted to screen for breast cancer, there is no solid evidence that they save lives. Plus, they expose you to 1,000 times more radiation than you’d get from a chest x-ray. Remember to grab your FREE REPORT.

How Women Can Use This Simple Fat Tweak to Improve Their Health

You probably already know Krill Oil as one of the best nutritional products you can add to your diet. But since women have unique health needs, you may have Krill For Women with Evening Primrose Oil formulated exclusively for you. You’ll receive all the benefits of pure Krill Oil, plus the added nutritional support specific to your female system.

Find Out More

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
News on Health & Science


Research from The Lancet questions the benefit of women starting annual mammograms at age 40. New data from a large United Kingdom study of more than 160,000 women finds that mammogram screening in younger women may provide little benefit in terms of reducing breast cancer risk, while at the same time exposing women to more radiation and the possibility of false alarms. Overall, women in the 40s who received mammograms saw a small drop in breast cancer deaths, around 17 percent, a figure that was not statistically different from chance. Also, 23 percent of the women had at least one false alarm   higher than the rate of 12 percent seen in women in their 50s. A related editorial says that it’s not clear that women in the 40s get a net benefit from mammogram screening because the potential harms may offset any benefit, and that women should decide individually whether they want the peace of mind from screening or the possibility of unnecessary radiation exposure from additional mammograms.

Source:   ABC News