Fewer Mammograms Being Done, Studies Show

rockin'robin

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
24,430
Reaction score
551
Study Says Fewer Doctors Pushing Procedure

(CNN) -- The use of mammograms has dipped since a medical task force made controversial recommendations that women in their 40s may not need to get breast cancer screenings every year, according to one of three small studies to be presented Monday.

The studies related to this topic will be presented at the American Roentgen Ray Society annual meeting. They do not appear in peer-reviewed journals.

The studies suggest that fewer physicians are recommending annual mammograms for women in their 40s, fewer patients in that age group are getting screened and that tumors found through routine mammography are more likely to be detected in early stages of cancer.

The studies examined the impact of the controversial guidelines issued by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, a federal advisory board.

In November 2009, the group stated that yearly mammograms should not be automatic at age 40 and that physicians should discuss their risks and benefits with their patients. It recommended routine mammography screenings every two years for women ages 50 to 74.

"The benefit in 40- to 49-year-old women is pretty small," said Dr. Virginia Moyer, chair of the task force, about annual mammograms. "There is a real, but rather modest benefit. There are also risks, and they are greater in younger women than older women."

Mammograms are less effective in detecting growths in younger women, whose breasts may be denser. The screening gets better with older women because breast tissues change over time.

As a result, some women experience false positives, anxiety and unnecessary biopsies because of mammograms, according to data. Roughly 15% of women in their 40s detect breast cancer through mammography.

"The benefit is modest enough it needs to be an individual decision," Moyer said about mammograms for women in their 40s.

This contradicted advice from cancer groups such as the American Cancer Society and Susan G. Komen for the Cure, which told women 40 and older to get screened every year. It sparked immediate outcry from such groups and cancer survivors, who say routine mammograms for women younger than 50 can save lives.

Suspicious growths caught in regular-screening mammograms are more likely to be in early stages and therefore more treatable, said Dr. Donna Plecha, division chief of mammography at University Hospitals at Case Medical Center in Ohio.

She reviewed records of 524 biopsies (samples of suspicious growths in breasts) from women in their 40s during 2008 to 2009 at her hospital.

Of the 359 biopsies from screening mammography patients, 15% had cancer. These cancers were more treatable because they were caught in earlier stages, Plecha said.

Although 85% of those biopsies turned out to be noncancerous, some "may show us the patient is at higher risk of breast cancer," she said.

"I haven't met many patients who don't appreciate us being thorough, to trying to find the cancers at an early stage," Plecha said. "I would still recommend screening mammograms starting at age of 40," because cancers caught earlier would be more curable.

Plecha's findings were not surprising to Moyer. It's obvious that annual screenings would catch cancers before they progress, she said.

The study presumes that catching earlier stages for women between the ages of 40-49 would translate into fewer breast cancer deaths.

"The data that we have suggests that 1 in a thousand will benefit from mammograms in the 40-49 age," she said. "There are whole lots of assumptions that are not supported by the data they presented."

The task force did not say don't get mammograms, Moyer said.

"It might make women not want to get the test," she said. "This is a decision that should belong to the woman with appropriate info on hand."

In another study, Dr. Lara Hardesty, section chief of breast imaging at the University of Colorado Hospital, examined survey results from fewer than 50 internists, gynecologists, family practitioners and nurse midwives.

She found that fewer clinicians were recommending annual mammograms after the task force's guidelines were issued.

Before the guidelines, 56% recommended yearly mammograms for women in the 40- to 49-year-old range. After the guidelines, that rate decreased to 20%, and 56% of the clinicians reported they were discussing the risks and benefits of screening with patients. That decrease, Hardesty said, "is a statistically significant difference," but it also showed more doctors were discussing mammograms with patients.

Hardesty also found that there were 205 fewer mammograms among women in their 40s after the guidelines were issued. Among patients 50 and older, mammograms increased slightly from 4,479 patients to 4,498.

It was unclear why mammograms in the 40s decreased while older women's mammograms increased slightly.

Hardesty offered this hypothesis: Older women are used to having annual mammograms because they've done it for years. Meanwhile, younger women may feel as though they don't have to get this screening.

Although the task force concluded that the net benefit of mammography in the 40s is small, Hardesty said: "If you're the one person we find your cancer, it's the world to you."

Fewer Mammograms Being Done, Studies Show - Health News Story - WJXT Jacksonville
 
All of mine have been clean and clear and there is no history of breast cancer in my family at all, but still, my doctor is requiring me to get another mammogram this month. I was told before since there is no history and with my clean one for the last 5 times, I did not need another for 5 years. It's only been 2 years and now I have to go again. Why?
 
All of mine have been clean and clear and there is no history of breast cancer in my family at all, but still, my doctor is requiring me to get another mammogram this month. I was told before since there is no history and with my clean one for the last 5 times, I did not need another for 5 years. It's only been 2 years and now I have to go again. Why?

That is simply not true. Breast cancer can develop at any time (although it is world-wide news if a teenage girl gets it, and extremely rare in your 20's and 30s, and still pretty uncommon in your 40's), and if you are a younger woman (40-50), the odds are you'd develop an aggressive (fast growing) breast cancer if you ever developed breast cancer. Neglecting to get screened for five years could result in a cancer only being caught when it is advanced and, as a result, far less treatable.
 
The standard risk is there for every woman regardless of age, family history, and so on. Every woman will have that baseline ~8-10% risk (I believe this number fluctuates a little between different studies/time of studies). This is due to the nature of human cells to malfunction in general, and has nothing to do with genetics. However, genetics do play a role in ashkenazic jewish, generally I think the number is a tacked +~10% onto the baseline risk. So women of this ethnicity will automatically be put on a +20% risk in general.

There are women in their 20's who develop cancer. There are women who are in their 70's or 80's develop cancer, but many average older patients by then acknowledge they are too old to bother with dealing with the cancer treatments. Often, the younger women (in their 20's and 30's) who develop cancer have a family history of it. Such as their mother or father.

Once you have an immediate family member, such as your mother, father, brother, sister diagnosed with one of the BRCA's, you automatically get placed on a higher risk.

If you have a family member or relative who has had a case of BRCA1/BRCA2, that information is assessed by a genetics specialist or counselor who will analyze your history for you to determine where you stand.

Also, you can get breast or ovarian cancer regardless of family history too. Studies have linked birth control pills (meaning, excess estrogen) to an increase in breast cancer, but a decrease to ovarian cancer. Having the first pregnancy/childbirth over the age of 30 is another potential. Having a late first period, like over the age of ~14-15 (we've seen as much as the age of 17-19) is another link. Having an early menopause before the age of 50 is another link. The ages do not have to be exact, they vary but are generally within the numbers.

Ovarian cancer is also associated with BRCA1 or BRCA2. It doesn't mean someone with breast cancer will get it, but the studies have shown that ovarian cancer is correlated. Even men can get breast cancer, although only BRCA2, and it is rare, but there are always cases.

A mammogram allows for early detection of the lumps forming in the cells. Sometimes it can take only a few months before seeing a small growth. Even women who have had mastectomies, and unfortunately also took reconstructive surgery, can see a regrowth. This is why mammograms in general are somewhat crucial if a woman is concerned about her health; it is an intervention to detect potential cancer earlier, or let you know there are benign growths.


If one plans to have children and are concerned whether they will get cancer or not, that are what the mammograms are for. There is a 50% chance of receiving the breast-cancer linked BRCA DNA from either of the parents, if one of them is a carrier. There have been cases of women who have breast cancer that is inherited from the father. Once someone knows they are a carrier, they can inform their children with the information if they want to.
 
Once you have an immediate family member, such as your mother, father, brother, sister diagnosed with one of the BRCA's, you automatically get placed on a higher risk.

This is simply not true. Unless someone is -personally- diagnosed with a BRCA mutation, there is absolutely no reason to believe that they themselves are at any higher risk of breast or ovarian cancer. The person should not merely "discuss it with a genetics counselor" but should get tested for the actual mutations!

Studies have linked birth control pills (meaning, excess estrogen) to an increase in breast cancer, but a decrease to ovarian cancer.

Wrong. Studies have linked using hormonal BC until the point of menopause with a slightly increased risk of breast cancer in some studies. No increase has been conclusively shown for women who cease taking BC five years or more before entering menopause, which it is safe to say the vast majority do. However, the protection -against- certain cancers that BC provides lasts a lifetime.

Moral of the story:

-no, birth control isn't going to kill you.

-No, most breast cancers are not genetic.

-No, even if a family member has the mutation, doesn't mean you have it.

-If you might be at risk for BC or ovarian cancer, -get tested- for the mutations! That is the only way to make an informed decision about your body and your future: guessing if you inherited a mutation is a rather ridiculous way to live.
 
I was at my doctor's office and I told him that I did not have a mammogram in awhile and my doctor looked at file and said you had one 2 months ago! I told my doctor no, it been a few years and he was getting upset with me and said I had one! I told him I would had remember having my breasts flatten like pancakes! My doctor finally read my test result over and said this is does not belong in your file, it is another patient ! Some fool had put another woman
mammogram in my file! I thought what if I did have one at the same time and and the wrong test results was in my file and it said I had cancer! I could had my breast removed for no reason!! I do not see that doctor any more! He was a jerk!
 
I was at my doctor's office and I told him that I did not have a mammogram in awhile and my doctor looked at file and said you had one 2 months ago! I told my doctor no, it been a few years and he was getting upset with me and said I had one! I told him I would had remember having my breasts flatten like pancakes! My doctor finally read my test result over and said this is does not belong in your file, it is another patient ! Some fool had put another woman
mammogram in my file! I thought what if I did have one at the same time and and the wrong test results was in my file and it said I had cancer! I could had my breast removed for no reason!! I do not see that doctor any more! He was a jerk!

That's... not quite how it works.

They don't just see a funny spot on the mammogram and proclaim loudly "OFF WITH HER TITS" or something. At the very least, someone would prob. realize that it was not your name on the paper. Or in the 1 in a bajillion chance that they don't figure it out, they'd realize that your breasts do not have anything special in 'em when they sent you for an ultrasound.

"Find a funny lump, hack 'em off" isn't how breast cancer care works. It's justified to be irritated at your dr's office for making a mistake, but it takes a huge stretch of the imagination to think that your health could have been endangered because of this. The worst possible outcome would involve you discovering what transducer jelly feels like on your breast- not having it thrown into a medical waste bin.
 
That's... not quite how it works.

They don't just see a funny spot on the mammogram and proclaim loudly "OFF WITH HER TITS" or something. At the very least, someone would prob. realize that it was not your name on the paper. Or in the 1 in a bajillion chance that they don't figure it out, they'd realize that your breasts do not have anything special in 'em when they sent you for an ultrasound.

"Find a funny lump, hack 'em off" isn't how breast cancer care works. It's justified to be irritated at your dr's office for making a mistake, but it takes a huge stretch of the imagination to think that your health could have been endangered because of this. The worst possible outcome would involve you discovering what transducer jelly feels like on your breast- not having it thrown into a medical waste bin.


I beg to differ. I have 3 women friends who had their breasts removed due to the mammogram and it was in actuality an incorrect mammogram. This was a doctor who was looking to make money. He is now out of work and no longer holds a medical license at all.
 
I beg to differ. I have 3 women friends who had their breasts removed due to the mammogram and it was in actuality an incorrect mammogram. This was a doctor who was looking to make money. He is now out of work and no longer holds a medical license at all.

Posting "like" to that comment just seems weird, so I won't do it, but you bring up a very good point. Doctors make mistakes. Even good doctors make the occasional mistake, and as they say, "50% of all doctors graduated in the bottom half of their class."

For me personally, nothing major comes out of my body (save in an emergency situation) without at least 2, preferably 3, doctors agreeing that it's essential. Took me a long time to agree to have a hysterectomy because of that, but finally when it was done, there was no question in my mind that it was the right thing.

Re: the mammograms, did anyone else catch the whopping error in their use of statistics? The article said "Roughly 15% of women in their 40s detect breast cancer through mammography."

Absolutely not true. That would be an astonishingly high rate of breast cancer, 15% of women in their 40s.

Later it somewhat clarified, when it explained "She reviewed records of 524 biopsies (samples of suspicious growths in breasts) from women in their 40s during 2008 to 2009 at her hospital.

Of the 359 biopsies from screening mammography patients, 15% had cancer. These cancers were more treatable because they were caught in earlier stages, Plecha said."

That's where the "15%" came from, but it's a far different thing from "15% of women in their 40s."

It doesn't say how many mammograms were done to arrive at the final 524 biopsies, and the 359 biopsies that came from screening mammogram patients.

Later in a direct quote, it says " "The data that we have suggests that 1 in a thousand will benefit from mammograms in the 40-49 age," she said."

Again, way, way different statistic than the earlier one.

Sad state of journalism when the writer can't make basic sense out of the numbers on an issue of great importance to women and their health-care providers.

The thing is, if we're going to try to save on health-care costs, it looks to me like fewer mammos for women in their 40s is not an altogether bad thing. If a procedure is only benefiting 1 woman out of a thousand, maybe that's where a woman's individual history (relatives with cancer, smoking, other health issues, etc.) should be considered more than just routinely prescribing them for everyone.
 
I beg to differ. I have 3 women friends who had their breasts removed due to the mammogram and it was in actuality an incorrect mammogram. This was a doctor who was looking to make money. He is now out of work and no longer holds a medical license at all.

That would be an unethical doctor illegally performing surgery on patients he has no reason to believe need it.

Mammography is never, ever ever EVER diagnostic of breast cancer.
 
Back
Top