HealthNewsReview.org | Independent Expert Reviews of News Stories | Holding Health and Medical Journalism Accountable |
|
|
Breast self-exams: What should YOU do?
September 16, 2008
Good job explaining that breast self examination is a personal decision, and depending on how someone feels about the increased risk of biopsy can determine whether she wants to do it or not.
Our Review Summary
This otherwise balanced story leads with a frightening anecdote from a woman whose breast cancer was only diagnosed by breast self-exam (BSE). Her statement that she would not have survived if she had not been vigilant about monthly exam may or may not be true. A physician's quote buried in the piece notes that tumor biology (not size) is the most important predictor of mortality. Introducing the story with such an unfortunate missed diagnosis detracts from the overall message that, in population studies, there is no demonstrated benefit to regular BSEs for low to moderate-risk women.
The story explains how public health and patient advocacy campaigns influenced the widespread promotion of BSE for every woman, and that such recommendations are no longer appropriate based on available evidence. The story references current breast cancer screening guidelines from the American Cancer Society and U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.
In general, the story does a good job explaining that breast self examination is a personal decision, and depending on how someone feels about the increased risk of biopsy can determine whether she wants to do it or not. Two vital pieces of information a woman needs when considering BSE:
- There is a distinction between the benefits of breast awareness (which can lead to identification of some clinically significant irregularities), and the regimented monthly self-exams often recommended by breast cancer experts (which the Cochrane research concludes appear to cause more harm than good).
- Every woman has a different risk profile for breast cancer. Individual recommendations for breast self-exam, clinical exam, mammography and other screening and diagnostic techniques will vary with these profiles.
Click on Criteria for definitions.
The availability of breast self-exams (BSE) is implicit; however, the story appropriately notes that not all physicians or health educators know current BSE technique, and there is a suggestion that inappropriate technique may influence the sensitivity of the self-exam. The story mentions a more sensitive technique--the vertical-strip, three pressure test-- used in Canada, which has been validated in a small subset of women.
It doesn't cost anything to do a breast self-exam.
The story does mention potential harms of increased doctor visits and unnecessary diagnostic procedures triggered by self-exams, with additional cost implied.
This otherwise balanced story leads with a frightening anecdote about a woman whose breast cancer was only diagnosed by breast self-exam. We do not know if her doctor also felt this lump. Her statement that she would not have survived if she had not been vigilant about monthly exam may or may not be true. A physician's quote buried in the piece notes that tumor biology (not size) is the most important predictor of mortality. Introducing this otherwise balanced story with such an unfortunate missed diagnosis detracts from the overall message that, in population studies there is no benefit to regular SBEs for low to moderate-risk women.
The story lists the downsides of screening via a self-breast exam, namely, over treatment via biopsies for false positives and false reassurance that mammography is not needed. The story appropriately notes a woman's individual risk is a factor when choosing how and when to be screened. A woman at higher-risk may feel that monitoring tissue changes via self-breast exams is useful.
Breast self-exam is not novel; neither are the recommendations being discussed. The story explains how public health education campaigns influenced the widespread promotion of BSE for every woman, and that such recommendations are no longer appropriate based on available evidence.
The story discusses two international studies upon which the Cochrane report is based and discusses the findings that there is no demonstrated benefit from regular BSE.
The story includes several independent sources and references to published studies. The story does not appear to rely solely or largely on a news release.
The story is based on an update of a report by the Cochrane Collaboration, a credible international group that analyzes bodies of scientific literature to determine overall findings. A range of clinicians put the report and practice of BSE in perspective. Physicians appropriately talk about the revised guidelines for this screening, and note that regular BSE is still an individual woman's choice. Women should be aware of the harms and lack of sensitivity of the exam. A patient is interviewed for the story, but her story of misdiagnosis seems to undercut the overall message of the piece: women must weigh the pros and potential downsides of regular BSE.
The story mentions mammograms as a better diagnostic option, yet the story also notes that this tool may may miss some cancers in the upper-outer quandrant of the breast. The story notes improved and more specific tactile breast self-exam methods as an option; however, there is little evidence that these techniques improve detection of early breast cancers in a large population. The story references current breast cancer screening guidelines from the American Cancer Society and U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.
Total Score: 9 of 10 Satisfactory
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is considered the gold standard of preventive health recommendations - including on screening tests. It's a good source for journalists and consumers.
About 70% of the stories reviewed from 2006-9 failed to adequately discuss costs, or to explain how big (or small) are the potential benefits and harms of treatments, tests, products and procedures.
We have documented a disturbing trend of news stories taking an advocacy stance, promoting certain screening tests outside the boundaries of scientific evidence.
Stories on new technologies like Cyberknife, DaVinci robotic surgery systems, and proton beam cancer therapy often fail to scrutinize the evidence and/or to discuss the costs involved.
Rather than suggesting that everyone should be screened for everything, news stories could explain: "All screening tests cause harm; some may do good."
The first 38 network TV network morning health news stories reviewed in 2009 earned an average score of 1.2 stars. 13 of the 38 stories got ZERO stars.
Both TIME magazine and BusinessWeek have published terrific stories explaining the importance of the Number Needed to Treat - or NNT.
Knowing relative risk reduction is like knowing you have a 50% off coupon but not knowing whether it's for a Lexus or a lollipop. Absolute risk reduction tells you what the "coupon" is worth. Read more.
The website NoFreeLunch.org posts "a database of health care professionals who have pledged to accept no gifts from industry and to rely on non-promotional sources of information."
To help journalists cover stories responsibly, we post a list of independent experts who state that they do not have financial ties to drug or medical device manufacturers.
We apply the same ten standardized criteria to the review of every story.
We have about 30 story reviewers. Each story is reviewed by 3 different people.
Gary Schwitzer's seven words you shouldn't use in medical news: cure, miracle, breakthrough, promising, dramatic, hope, victim. Read why.
Our reviewers include two former CNN medical reporters and a former editor of the Washington Post health section.