On Women

Too Many Breast Cancers Diagnosed by Mammograms?

By Deborah Kotz

Posted: July 10, 2009

When it comes to breast cancer, there are certain dogmas that we accept as fact: First, a malignant tumor—allowed to grow unchecked—will eventually spread throughout the body and kill. Second, regular mammograms are a must for women over 40 to find every mass before it turns deadly. The trouble is, these "truths" aren't substantiated by scientific evidence. A new and somewhat shocking study out today shows that about 1 in 3 breast cancers detected on screening mammograms is overtreated. In other words, these malignancies wouldn't have caused symptoms or death in a woman's lifetime, according to research published in the British Medical Journal.

The study, reviewing data from women who began screening at age 50, specifically found that mammograms save 1 life for every 10 cancers that are diagnosed and treated unnecessarily. (Another study published three years ago measured 1 saved life for every 2 cancers unnecessarily treated.) What this means is that mammograms lead to far more unnecessary surgeries and chemotherapy treatments than saved lives. "The real question is, how hard should we be looking for breast cancer?" asks Gilbert Welch, a professor of medicine at the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Research who wrote an editorial that accompanied the study. That's a toughie because most women wouldn't feel comfortable knowing that they might have a potentially deadly breast tumor lurking in their body undetected. And, as breast surgeon Susan Love previously told me, doctors aren't able to discern the deadly cancers from the benign ones.

Welch thinks that women need to make informed decisions when it comes to deciding whether to be screened with mammograms, rather than being told simply that the X-ray is lifesaving. The new study showed some compelling evidence, graphing incidence rates of invasive breast cancer over the decades, beginning before screening was initiated. If mammography screening were working to find troublesome breast cancer in women in their 50s, then the incidence of breast cancer should have dropped for women who were screened in their 50s and 60s and who were now hitting their 70s when comparing them to those in their 70s who were never screened. Instead, the incidence rates don't drop below the rate that would be expected if women never had screening in the first place. What this suggests is that mammograms find a lot of tumors that may never have been found otherwise or caused any problems.

This is very similar to the dilemma posed by prostate cancer, says Welch. Experts are now beginning to question the usefulness of PSA screening, given that autopsy studies show that invasive prostate cancer commonly occurs in men who die of something else.

On the other hand, women need to realize that there's simply no way to tell which invasive cancers will launch an all-out assault on their organs and which will stand idly by, doing no harm. The smart thing to do? Arm yourself with knowledge and determine what works best for you, which, as I wrote in my last blog post, breast cancer patients do all the time.

Welch drew up a nice balance sheet to show the upsides and downsides for every thousand women who undergo annual mammograms for 10 years. On the plus side: One woman out of 1,000 will avoid dying of breast cancer. On the downside: Two to 10 women will be treated needlessly; 10 to 15 women will be told they have breast cancer earlier than they would have, though this won't affect their prognosis; 100 to 500 women will have at least one "false alarm" finding, and half of them will undergo a biopsy that turns out to be benign.

All doctors, Welch says, should discuss both the risks and benefits when counseling women on screening mammography. "It's informed consent," he says. "I don't think a woman is crazy if she decides to have regular mammograms, but I also don't think she's crazy if she doesn't. It's the ultimate close call in medicine."

What do you think? Are the lifesaving benefits of mammograms worth the risks of overtreatment?

Related news:

X Rays/Radiation Are Never a Good Thing

A $4 billion dollar a year business (mammograms) is likely to stay around for a while. You can develop cancer in any part of your body - why focus on the breasts? I would think that if you start with mammos at age 40 and live till your 80 (40 xrays of your chest CAN'T be a good thing). Studies on the accuracy and harm of this test should be more publicized but sentence #1 clears it all up!

joan of CT @ Aug 05, 2009 15:39:57 PM

do I need a yearly mammogram?

I'm 38 and I'm exactly in the same dilema the article talks about. I had a benign tumor removed from my right breast 3 years ago, needless to say I was very scare by the whole ordeal. My doctor recommended me to be taking a yearly mammogram, which I've done since then and without thinking too much about it, but frankly, this year I don't feel like going through it, I feel fine, but there's is a little nagging voice inside me that tells me that I would feel very guilty if later in life I'm diagnosed with something that could be treated now, so what to do?, to do the mammogram or not do the mammogram?, that's the question I don't have an answer for.

LM of TX @ Jul 22, 2009 22:25:23 PM

Informed consent

It's about time that accurate information about screening mammography is provided to every woman who is considering having it done. A great source is www.screening.dk

Right now, every promoter of screening mammography - doctors, the American Cancer Society, Susan Komen etc. only mention the benefits. Risks like overtreatment (surgery, radiation, chemo), an increase in mastectomies (YES, an increase, not decrease), unnecessary biopsies, and personal consequences (unemployment, inability to get health insurance, labeling of daughters and other female relatives as high risk, increased divorce rate) are literally never mentioned. How dishonest and unfair. Women are led like lambs to the slaughter - we need the full story to make our own decisions.

And please, anyone who has been treated for cancer found by mammogram - realize that there is a good chance that you never needed treatment in the first place. Doctors tell every such patient how lucky they are, but that doesn't mean it's true.

Ginny of NJ @ Jul 16, 2009 12:48:54 PM

Add Your Thoughts
About You

advertisement

On Women

On Women

Deborah Kotz, senior writer for U.S. News & World Report, covers everything women care about when it comes to their health. She's often tapping out "Oprah-esque" confessions about how the latest news relates to her personally—whether it's on breast cancer, contraception or easing work-family stress. She'd love to hear your confessions too at onwomen@usnews.com. Also, you can follow Deborah on Twitter at twitter.com/debkotz2.

Health Check

advertisement

Blog Favorites

Subscribe

U.S. News Digital Weekly

A weekly insider's guide to politics and policy — in a multimedia, digital format. 52 issues for $19.95!

U.S. News & World Report

6 months of U.S. News & World Report's print edition for only $15. Save up to 67% off the cover price!