| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS FEED | MONDAYS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« Cézanne: A Life by Alex Danchev | Main | The Art of Friendship »

November 23, 2012

The benefits of mammograms under fire

From Nature:

MammThe routine use of mammography to screen healthy women for breast cancer is leading to the widespread detection and treatment of tumours that would never have caused symptoms, a study in the New England Journal of Medicine asserts today1. The results inject yet another dose of controversy into an area that is already hotly debated. The study examined the effects of mammography screens on breast-cancer incidence between 1976 and 2008 in US women over 40. The authors conclude that more than one million women diagnosed with the disease would never have developed symptoms. In 2008 alone, they estimate, more than 70,000 women had such breast tumours diagnosed, accounting for 31% of all breast cancers diagnosed in women 40 and older. “Our study raises serious questions about the value of screening mammography,” the paper concludes. “The harm of overdiagnosis [is] probably larger than has been previously recognized.” The diagnosed women, the authors add, have undergone treatments involving surgery, radiation, hormones and chemotherapy “for abnormalities that otherwise would not have caused illness”.

...The study authors — oncologist Archie Bleyer of the St Charles Regional Cancer Center in Bend, Oregon, and H. Gilbert Welch, a professor of medicine at Dartmouth College’s Geisel School of Medicine in Hanover, New Hampshire — examined the change in incidence of early-stage and late-stage breast cancer after large numbers of women began to have screening mammograms in the mid-1980s. As expected with the advent of a widespread screening programme, they found that diagnoses of early-stage disease more than doubled during the three decades, with an increase of 122 cases for every 100,000 women. The authors argue that if the screening was working as intended and stopping those cancers from progressing to a more harmful disease, then one would expect to see a roughly equivalent decrease in late diagnoses. Instead, they found that, assuming a steady underlying rate of breast cancer incidence, the number of late-diagnosed cancers decreased by only 8 cases per 100,000 women. Their inference: many of the early cases being detected through screening would not have gone on to cause symptomatic disease. They also conclude that mammography’s contribution to the sharp decline in breast-cancer mortality rates during the same period must therefore be small.

More here.

Posted by Azra Raza at 07:01 AM | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment






Subscribe to this blog's feed  

PayAnywhere with iphone credit card swiper

Android Tablet

Bluetooth Headset

2013 New Style Dresses

Compare Car Rental Prices

DHgate.com Wholesale

3QD on Facebook

3QD on Kindle

3QD by Daily Email

Receive all blogposts at the same time every day.

Enter your Email:


Preview 3QD Email

3QD on Twitter

Miscellany

Lijit Search

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google

Recent Comments

Lusine on Syria: Inventing a Religious War

Brad Wilson on Gezi Park

Raza Husain on Syria: Inventing a Religious War

Brad Wilson on The Insanity Virus

billy on Syria: Inventing a Religious War

rafiq on The Insanity Virus

Ben Schwartz on Here He Goes Again: Sam Harris’s Falsehoods

JonJ on Moving books

musafir on My Father: A Veteran's Story – Part 2

omar on Quest for 'Genius Babies'?

Norman Costa on My Father: A Veteran's Story

j_93 on Syria: Inventing a Religious War

jo smith on Syria: Inventing a Religious War

Dredd on Political Ideology and the Avoidance of Dissonance-Arousing Situations

Dredd on Syria: Inventing a Religious War

R. Michael on Moving books

Brad Wilson on Political Ideology and the Avoidance of Dissonance-Arousing Situations

prasad on Quest for 'Genius Babies'?

Elatia Harris on Here He Goes Again: Sam Harris’s Falsehoods

Brad Wilson on Here He Goes Again: Sam Harris’s Falsehoods

Ben Schwartz on Here He Goes Again: Sam Harris’s Falsehoods

X on Physics’s Pangolin

jo smith on What is ‘smart’ and how does it fit our consciousness?

Jesse M. on NAPOLEON CHAGNON: BLOOD IS THEIR ARGUMENT

David Clausen on Psychiatry’s mistaken manual

Acclaim For 3QD


"I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

"Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

Read more here.

The 3QD Prizes

Subscribe to this blog's feed