news-record.com

NEWS

Greensboro doctor says don’t stop mammograms

Wednesday, November 18, 2009
(Updated Thursday, November 19 - 5:31 am)

GREENSBORO — If you’re a woman over 40, get a mammogram every year.

Dr. Beth Brown , director of The Breast Center of Greensboro Imaging , gave that recommendation as a counter to the advice this week from a federal government panel, which said most women in their 40s should not routinely get mammograms and that women in their 50s should get them every two years.

Of the 509 cases of breast cancer detected through Greensboro Imaging so far this year, Brown said 139 were in women younger than 50 .

“And the bottom line is that this panel may have made this recommendation, but patients should be referred back to the American Cancer Society recommendation,” Brown said.

The American Cancer Society has encouraged women, for years, to schedule mammograms beginning at age 40 and each year thereafter. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force issued its guidelines Monday.

“I work with all radiologists, and we’re all just mortified,” Brown said of the new recommendations, “and this just goes in the face of all the data.”

The task force said that mammograms might even do more harm than good, with unnecessary biopsies, false diagnoses and undue stress on patients. In Europe, Canada and other developed nations, many women don’t receive mammograms until age 50 . The task force’s advice does not apply to women with a high risk of breast cancer because of family history or gene mutations.

Two women under 50 who have faced or have breast cancer credit a mammogram for saving their lives.

“You’re going to go the other way and end up with more mortalities than with early detection,” said Diane Darnell , 43, who was diagnosed five years ago and has been living with breast cancer .

“I’m afraid that there will be people who will slip through the cracks,” Darnell said.

Laura Craven is a breast cancer survivor who credits detection through a mammogram for saving her life.

“Good God, it’s so stupid to me,” she said of the task force recommendation. “And the people who talk about it causing unnecessary worry — do you worry that you have cancer and don’t know it?”

Craven, who is 46, was diagnosed when she was 39 .

“My gynecologist recommended, as a good prevention, a baseline mammogram when I was 35,” she said.

Of course, the option will remain for women to receive mammograms any time, but some fear that insurance companies might adjust policies based on task force recommendations, though many who studied the same data reached different conclusions.

Such as the American Cancer Society.

“Our experts make this recommendation (mammograms beginning at age 40) having reviewed virtually all the same data reviewed by the USPSTF, but also additional data that the (task force) did not consider,” Otis W. Brawley, chief medical officer for the American Cancer Society , said in a statement Monday . “When recommendations are based on judgments about the balance of risks and benefits, reasonable experts can look at the same data and reach different conclusions.”

Brown said Tuesday that she’s been speaking with colleagues about the message from the federal government.

“And I think that patients, on the whole, are going to be very confused by this,” she said.

Contact Gerald Witt at 373-7008 or gerald.witt@news-record.com

Accompanying Photos

LEARN MORE ONLINE

American Cancer Society: www.cancer.org

Society of Breast Imaging: www.sbi-online.org

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: www.ahrq.gov/CLINIC/uspstfix.htm

Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

ravencottage

November 18, 2009 - 6:14 am EST

Who are the members of "The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force" and what is their position on H.R. 3962, the recently passed Pelosi/Obama healthcare rationing bill?

percy

November 18, 2009 - 9:21 am EST

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is the leading independent panel of private-sector experts in prevention and primary care. The USPSTF conducts rigorous, impartial assessments of the scientific evidence for the effectiveness of a broad range of clinical preventive services, including screening, counseling, and preventive medications. Its recommendations are considered the "gold standard" for clinical preventive services.Current members of the Task Force;

Bruce N. Calonge, M.D., M.P.H. (Chair)
Chief Medical Officer and State Epidemiologist
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Denver, CO

Diana B. Petitti, M.D., M.P.H. (Vice Chair)
Professor of Biomedical Informatics
Fulton School of Engineering
Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ

Susan Curry, Ph.D.
Dean, College of Public Health
Distinguished Professor
University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA

Allen J. Dietrich, M.D.
Professor, Community and Family Medicine
Dartmouth Medical School, Hanover, NH

Thomas G. DeWitt, M.D.
Carl Weihl Professor of Pediatrics
Director of the Division of General and Community Pediatrics
Department of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH

Kimberly D. Gregory, M.D., M.P.H.
Director, Maternal-Fetal Medicine and Women's Health Services Research
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA

David Grossman, M.D., M.P.H.
Medical Director, Preventive Care and Senior Investigator, Center for Health Studies, Group Health Cooperative
Professor of Health Services and Adjunct Professor of Pediatrics
University of Washington, Seattle, WA

George Isham, M.D., M.S.
Medical Director and Chief Health Officer
HealthPartners, Minneapolis, MN

Michael L. LeFevre, M.D., M.S.P.H.
Professor, Department of Family and Community Medicine
University of Missouri School of Medicine, Columbia, MO

Rosanne Leipzig, M.D., Ph.D
Professor, Geriatrics and Adult Development, Medicine, Health Policy
Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY

Lucy N. Marion, Ph.D., R.N.
Dean and Professor, School of Nursing
Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, GA

Joy Melnikow, M.D., M.P.H.
Professor, Department of Family and Community Medicine
Associate Director, Center for Healthcare Policy and Research
University of California Davis, Sacramento, CA

Bernadette Melnyk, Ph.D., R.N., C.P.N.P./N.P.P.
Dean and Distinguished Foundation Professor in Nursing
College of Nursing & Healthcare Innovation
Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ

Wanda Nicholson, M.D., M.P.H., M.B.A.
Associate Professor
Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD

J. Sanford (Sandy) Schwartz, M.D.
Leon Hess Professor of Medicine, Health Management, and Economics
University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine and Wharton School, Philadelphia, PA

Timothy Wilt, M.D., M.P.H.
Professor, Department of Medicine, Minneapolis VA Medical Center
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN

As the mission of the USPSTF is to evaluate the benefits of individual services based on age, gender, and risk factors for disease; make recommendations about which preventive services should be incorporated routinely into primary medical care and for which populations; and identify a research agenda for clinical preventive care; it would be out of their scope to weigh in on legislation.

tbench

November 18, 2009 - 10:14 am EST

Pay attention people Obama care has begun!!!!!!!!

Panacea

November 18, 2009 - 10:43 am EST

Nonsense. This recommendation has nothing to do with insurance or with the proposed health care reform bill.

This panel makes all kinds of recommendations, and has for years. This particular recommendation shouldn't be used as part of the health care debate because it has nothing to do with health care reform.

That being said, I'm not convinced this recommendation is a good one. I would urge any woman 40 or over to have a detailed discussion with her doctor about the risks vs the benefits of yearly mammograms, and to make that decision with her individual risk factors for breast cancer in mind.

tbench

November 18, 2009 - 10:52 am EST

I knew that would smoke you out!!!!

Panacea

November 18, 2009 - 3:39 pm EST

Oh? Why's that?

ravencottage

November 18, 2009 - 12:47 pm EST

Thank you for this list. I see every member works for an institution which receives federal funding in one form or another. It is naive to think..."it would be out of their scope to weigh in on legislation"...particularly this massive bill which will directly affect their incomes and futures. I can envision the USPSTF morphing into the much discussed "death panel" if H.R. 3962 becomes law.

Panacea

November 18, 2009 - 3:43 pm EST

What are you talking about. These are academics at some of the finest and most reputable schools of medicine in the country. Since most colleges and university get federal funds for this that or the other, it is incredulous to suggest this panel is making a recommendation on mammograms based on self interest or to influence the health care debate.

If you want to voice opposition to reform that's one thing. Use reasons that are relevant and make sense, please. Obvious paranoia does not help your argument.

percy

November 18, 2009 - 4:02 pm EST

Hate to bust your chops ravencottage but let me reiterate: the mission of the USPSTF is to evaluate the benefits of individual services based on age, gender, and risk factors for disease; make recommendations about which preventive services should be incorporated routinely into primary medical care and for which populations; and identify a research agenda for clinical preventive care. This is their purpose, what they are tasked to do. Perhaps they bandy about their personal views regarding legislation behind closed doors but it is not their purpose to advise on legislation so, therefore, out of their scope to weigh in legislation concerning reform of the health care system. The naivete is yours or perhaps you've never actually served in the public sector?

oh good grief

November 18, 2009 - 11:46 am EST

Quoted from the "recommendation" report website:

"Harms of Detection and Early Intervention
The harms resulting from screening for breast cancer include psychological harms, unnecessary imaging tests and biopsies in women without cancer, and inconvenience due to false-positive screening results."

I note in particular the words "psychological harms" and "inconvenience." I take umbrage at the suggestion that women's psyches are so fragile that they suffer "psychological harms" and "inconvenience" as a result of attempting to be more knowledgable about, and take better care of, their health.

From the N-R article: "The task force's advice does not apply to women with a high risk of breast cancer because of family history or gene mutations."

Note the words "or gene mutations." A DNA test would be required to determine "gene mutations." A DNA test is very expensive ( the cost of a single DNA test could pay for 10 or more regular mammograms) and having a DNA test could be a more angst-filled experience than having regular mammograms beginning at age 40.

vphb

November 18, 2009 - 12:29 pm EST

As one of the 139 women under 50 (I have just turned 40) whose breast cancer was caught this year during a routine mammogram - I could not agree more with Dr. Brown. Start with a basline when you are 35 and then get on a regular schedule by the time you are 40.

I am not considered high risk, nor is there any real history in my family so I would probably fall into the "most women" category... My health and my peace of mind are well worth a little "inconvenience." And believe me - I would have been really happy had my biopsy been "unnecessary."

SusanBAnthony

November 18, 2009 - 5:29 pm EST

It was reported that the study found that more women in their 40's got breast cancer due to the radiation than were saved by mammography. It's not a matter of being safe rather than sorry: in fact, most women who get yearly mammograms in their 40's will increase their chances of getting breast cancer and perhaps dying from it. That's the issue.
Anyone who wants to get a mammogram in their 40's is still able to do that. It's not expensive. And insurance may still cover it in some cases. So what's the uproar about? People who make their livings by doing mammography? In fact, the study found that most breast cancers are found by women themselves at home at random times.

dcolin

November 18, 2009 - 6:21 pm EST

Thank You.

My point exactly.

Look at the study before you condemn it

Dr Browns 140 out of 500 is irrelevant.

Other people are now saying this is what government health care will do.
Ration etc.

Everyone uses the statistics for their own profit,
Look at the study first before condemning it.

newkid

November 18, 2009 - 9:56 pm EST

Seventeen years ago, my mother died from breast cancer. It is disheartening to know that, all this time later, patients still do not have clear guidelines for the detection of this disease.

And while I also question the impartiality of a physician whose income is in part dependent upon performing mammograms, I find it hard to question the American Cancer Society on this issue.

"unecessary biopsies, false diagnoses and undue stress on patients" are not good, but none is fatal. A malignancy that goes undetected until age 50 may well be a death sentence.

dcolin

November 18, 2009 - 10:32 pm EST

I agree with you.

Why not start routine screening at 20yrs?

It is not that simple

Also radiology increases the chances of cancer.

laserguidedloogie

November 19, 2009 - 5:50 am EST

Nothing is as straightforward as it seems.

For example, what are the rates of false positives and what are the consequences of that both in financial and medical terms? Also, given that most pre-cancerous formations in the body don't become full fledged cancer and would resolve itself with no interventions, is it possible that by ruthlessly pursuing every incidence of "cancer" in the body that you might do more harm that good?

I don't know the answers to those questions but I think they are interesting and have bearing on this issue.

One other thing. The point of "being suspicious" of government isn't to indulge in some sort of infantile rebellion against authority. Rather it is a very healthy attempt to "bring balance to the force." The consequences of too much respect for authority can be severe when authority is wrong; and authority is frequently wrong.

For example, government panels, of any sort, that make sincere and professionally correct pronouncements about a given issue should never just be assumed to be right. The problem with such groups is that however smart and educated they may be, they can institutionalize a wrongheaded belief through blind acceptance of the orthdoxy. (i.e. Thalidomide, Vioxx).

Don't just assume people are right because they are smart, sincere, well educated and conscientious. They can be all that and still be wrong.

Ken
http://www.LaserGuidedLoogie.com

eMail Updates

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Featured Ads

Search

Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

News & Record Network Sites

User Tools

  • Social Networking
  • RSS
  • Share
  • Sign in to MyNR

Search