General Discussion

Recursion

(56,582 posts) Fri Feb 14, 2014, 01:01 AM Feb 2014

How Mammograms Improve Survival but Not Mortality [View all]

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/02/how-mammograms-improve-survival-but-not-mortality/283779/

About 16 million breast x-rays (mammograms) are done every year in the U.S. in attempt to stem the 41,000 annual lives lost to breast cancer. A large, long-term study came out late yesterday in a major medical journal, BMJ, that says mammography may be a waste of time and money.

The actual study says that screening for cancer with mammography in women ages 40 to 59 "does not reduce mortality from breast cancer" in places where treatment is available.

The University of Toronto study split a group of 89,835 women in two. Half of them got mammograms, and half did not. After 25 years, the rate of death from breast cancer was the same in both groups. Some of the women who underwent mammograms ended up with unnecessary treatment.

...

Mammography may help us find cancers earlier, so people live longer with the diagnosis. That is an increased survival rate. Despite improving survival rate, mammograms don't, the Toronto study says, save lives.

76 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

How Mammograms Improve Survival but Not Mortality [View all] Recursion Feb 2014 OP

Here's the thing... ohheckyeah Feb 2014 #1

What's most surprising to me is that this seems to undercut the "early detection is best" narrative Recursion Feb 2014 #2

The very mammogram that may have caught the cancer, may ohheckyeah Feb 2014 #3

There must be a flaw with the article. Because the contradictory things it says can't be reconciled. lumberjack_jeff Feb 2014 #4

How so? It makes perfect sense to me Recursion Feb 2014 #5

Perhaps you're right. lumberjack_jeff Feb 2014 #41

Without reading the source article, I might argue that survival time has not increased. hedgehog Feb 2014 #49

What you're describing is increased survival time Recursion Feb 2014 #64

I'm suspicious that the phrase "increased survival time" implies something that isn't true. hedgehog Feb 2014 #67

Right, that's the article's point Recursion Feb 2014 #70

The former MannyGoldstein Feb 2014 #54

Any women who has found a tumor by mammography, that could not be felt manually, I would say has lostincalifornia Feb 2014 #6

Yes, this seems to contradict that: earlier detection is not decreasing mortality Recursion Feb 2014 #7

I would want to know if the treatments that were applied were the most effective ones. It is well lostincalifornia Feb 2014 #8

This does seem to raise more questions than answers Recursion Feb 2014 #9

I agree. I added more comments to my post also, wanting to know the criteria used in reading the lostincalifornia Feb 2014 #17

A biopsy itself has contraindications Recursion Feb 2014 #19

the only way a firm diagnosis can be made is with a biopsy. If a mammogram shows a suspicious area, lostincalifornia Feb 2014 #26

The risk of driving to the clinic is greater than both Recursion Feb 2014 #27

It is a question of risk verses reward. People need to make their own informed decision. The most lostincalifornia Feb 2014 #29

I do agree patient choice needs to be front and center here Recursion Feb 2014 #30

It is my understanding that many times when any tumor is removed this promotes metastication AngryAmish Feb 2014 #75

As far as unnecessary treatment goes, there is some concern that we are finding and treating hedgehog Feb 2014 #50

There is no rule that if you are at a certain age it will be aggressive. The only way to determine lostincalifornia Feb 2014 #66

The issues you raise are very valid and the reason for intense scrutiny of hedgehog Feb 2014 #68

We are on the same page lostincalifornia Feb 2014 #69

Yes, this research does contradict that prior belief. pnwmom Feb 2014 #15

Thanks for the explanation it finally makes sense..nt Jesus Malverde Feb 2014 #24

Actually that is NOT true with prostate cancer. If a prostate cancer is found, and it is localized lostincalifornia Feb 2014 #31

The point is that "active surveillance" is now an option in many low grade and small cancers, pnwmom Feb 2014 #34

agreed. As usual, I jumped to the wrong conclusion. Thanks lostincalifornia Feb 2014 #40

I don't know for sure, but to me PotatoChip Feb 2014 #63

I'm 43. Starry Messenger Feb 2014 #10

It's been a low-level statistical inference war for about a decade now Recursion Feb 2014 #12

No. This isn't a sudden spate of research. This 90,000 subject study has studied these pnwmom Feb 2014 #16

Talk to your doctor REP Feb 2014 #22

That has got to be frustrating. Jesus Malverde Feb 2014 #25

No, this evidence has been building for some time. alarimer Feb 2014 #42

We now have safer means of ohheckyeah Feb 2014 #43

Unfortunately (and I am no expert) it seems to take a long time for new methods to be accepted alarimer Feb 2014 #44

Women need to know their options ohheckyeah Feb 2014 #47

There was some interesting design in that study. LisaL Feb 2014 #11

OK, that's a pretty huge issue there Recursion Feb 2014 #13

Appears to be a number of issues with the study, from reading that article. LisaL Feb 2014 #14

So why aren't mortality rates lower among those who have received mammograms? Recursion Feb 2014 #18

That is one thing, or at least set up consistent standards, but you can't just mixed different age lostincalifornia Feb 2014 #21

Well, LisaL Feb 2014 #23

The biggest problem with mammograms are women with dense breasts. Those women should request an MRI lostincalifornia Feb 2014 #28

Well, of course Brainstormy Feb 2014 #57

Wow, that says everything, and was one of my very questions. Did the radiologists all adhere to the lostincalifornia Feb 2014 #20

And if you have large, dense breasts, Le Taz Hot Feb 2014 #32

Is ultrasound effective for finding cancer? flamingdem Feb 2014 #37

I have no idea. Le Taz Hot Feb 2014 #39

Mine was caught by ultrasound Ruby the Liberal Feb 2014 #52

If you are one of the small percentage of women who get breast cancer, bemildred Feb 2014 #33

I was just diagnosed with DCIS (Ductal Carcinoma in Situ) via a mammogram. phylny Feb 2014 #35

I had infiltrating 840high Feb 2014 #53

And to you, hope you are well! phylny Feb 2014 #61

Yes - thank you. Hugs to you. 840high Feb 2014 #65

If true, it means modern medicine hasn't gotten anywhere in the war on cancer. reformist2 Feb 2014 #36

The problem with early detection leftyladyfrommo Feb 2014 #38

I refuse to have my breasts smashed between two flat plates & irradiated ever again. scarletwoman Feb 2014 #45

I don't trust them, either. leftyladyfrommo Feb 2014 #48

I'm getting sick of this bullshit, too. AngryOldDem Feb 2014 #51

I would not be shocked at all! Phentex Feb 2014 #55

I think I read that most lumps are found by self exams. leftyladyfrommo Feb 2014 #73

I'm 52 next week; never had one and never will JenniferJuniper Feb 2014 #56

The images have become so sensitive, especially now madaboutharry Feb 2014 #58

Do you have any links for these studies or basic articles flamingdem Feb 2014 #59

�Screening for breast cancer with mammography� JenniferJuniper Feb 2014 #62

Thanks for those flamingdem Feb 2014 #71

It's only scary because we have been conditioned to believe leftyladyfrommo Feb 2014 #74

I'm familiar with this study. AngryOldDem Feb 2014 #60

is that a fact? that we all have cancers? Liberal_in_LA Feb 2014 #72

That's what I've been reading. leftyladyfrommo Feb 2014 #76

Deborah Rhodes: A test that finds 3x more breast tumors, and why it's not available to you LiberalAndProud Feb 2014 #46