Cancer screening confusion
The American Cancer Society's has long recommended that women begin annual breast screening at age 40. A new government task force, however, has issued recommendations that say women should undergo mammography every two years beginning at age 50. The panel of scientists and physicians also says breast self-exams do no good.
The panel says screening for breast cancer before age 50 results in too many false alarms and unneeded biopsies without substantially improving women's odds of survival. The panel developed the guidelines after six research teams around the world studied federal data on cancer and mammography to create mathematical models of what would happen if women were screened at different ages and time intervals.
The U.S. Preventative Services Task Force's guidelines are for the general population, not those at high risk of breast cancer because of family history or gene mutations that would justify undergoing mammography more frequently and earlier than 50.
As with all new medical recommendations, there are many more questions than answers. The best course is to ask one's health-care provider how the new recommendations apply to one's own circumstance.
It does not escape notice that the American Cancer Society's cancer-screening recommendations have not changed in the face of this new recommendation from the government panel. The cancer society feels the benefits of screening outweigh any potential harms.
Responding to the recommendations, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said the doctors and scientists on the task force "do not set federal policy, and they don't determine what services are covered by the federal government."
While the panel's recommendations do not apply to women who are considered at greater risk of developing breast cancer, 70 to 80 percent of women who get breast cancer have no family history of the disease, according to the American Cancer Society. Are women ages 40-49 willing to run that risk? Are their health-care providers?
Moreover, will cost-conscious insurance companies alter their coverage of this screening to conform to the task force findings? One industry group says coverage isn't likely to change. Incidentally, Utah is the only state that does not mandate that insurance companies cover routine mammograms.
This drastic reversal in breast-cancer screening recommendations is stunning. There is no harm in women continuing to conduct breast self-exams. Anecdotally, many people know women who discovered lumps in their breasts during self-exams that turned out to be malignant. Still others know at least one person who was diagnosed with breast cancer before age 50 via mammography.
Statistically, however, the risks of getting breast cancer go up with age. About two-thirds of women with invasive breast cancer are 55 or older when the cancer is detected, according to the American Cancer Society. This would lend some credence to the panel's recommendations.
Part of the panel's recommendations hinged on the risks posed by mammography, such as false positives, unnecessary tests and how much extra radiation women were exposed to during false-positive testing. That was weighed against the benefits of mammography, such as how many cancers were detected and how many lives were saved.
While the math make might sense, practitioners will have to weigh the recommendations against what is best for their patients' physical health and mental well-being. Understanding that mammography is not perfect, there are numerous incidents in which the test has saved lives. Seemingly, patients deserve the use of the best available tools to combat a disease that is a leading killer of women.
Recent comments
If I waited til 50 to get my first mammogram.....I would be dead. I...
Heather Malovich | Nov. 24, 2009 at 1:31 p.m.
All preventitive medicine costs more than it saves money wise except...
wallofvoodoo | Nov. 24, 2009 at 7:28 a.m.
Just for the record, one of the cost elements of an x-ray has been...
Spoc | Nov. 23, 2009 at 9:04 p.m.
- Penguin exhibit pushed back 6:53 p.m.
- Proposal to skip 12th grade now a bill 6:50 p.m.
- Budget cuts spare public education 6:46 p.m.
- Plans call for 2nd waste site 6:39 p.m.
- School vending machine bill fizzles 6:34 p.m.
- Provo gets high marks in survey 6:19 p.m.
- Collie hailed as role model 6:05 p.m.
- Leaders look to clean up Depot Dist. 6:04 p.m.
- Trucking company donates to U. 6:00 p.m.
- Kids may suffer from exhaust fumes 5:43 p.m.
- High school players commit to BYU
- Utah Jazz Ironmen
- LDS veggie program helps Bolivians
- Teacher merit pay debated
- Utahn's 'Caveman Diet' catching on
- SLC's City Creek moves ahead
- MWC race shaping 'Survivor' style
- Kaman, not Boozer, on All-Star team
- 2nd Layton girl hospitalized from gas
- Cougars hope for fast rebound
- UNLV bombs BYU into loss
185 - Teacher merit pay debated
183 - Why do they hate us? Try asking
153 - Countering attacks on LDS scholarship
146 - Letters: Tea Party hypocrites
119 - Rally in opposition to benefit cuts
90 - High school players commit to BYU
81 - Utah football alters schedule
80 - BYU's prime postseason position?
77 - Let's talk college hoops
77
Nice article. Good show. Great couple; great chocolates (and my favorite, pot...
I like how a kid who went to BYU and received all kinds of criticism, yet...
I hear its a good place and affordable
you can spin it anyway you want. but it looks like the pac 10 is looking at...
'Correct me if I'm wrong, but by "natural" you are saying it should be...
To "Anonymous" at 5:48 PM 2010-02-09: Shame on you for that unfounded...
Yep, they want the center, but don't want to pay for it - typical. I'd...
It's funny hearing American's complain about consumption, seeing that even...
Can someone tell me why all Millards wrestlers had writting on their right...
I am a Utah alum and fan. And, I'll be the first to say that Collie is a...



