A physician wrote me this morning, upset about a Tweet from Elizabeth Cohen of CNN, which read:
“To all my sisters over 40: we need mammos once a year. 1 out of 3 don’t get em, so spread the word.”
The physician reacted to a journalist crossing over the line from balanced vetting of evidence into outright blatant advocacy:
Another journalist tweeted: “Mammograms should begin at age 40. Bless you, ACOG.”
The physician wrote to me:
“I can’t understand how a health reporter with a forum like that can write such things. Could a political reporter say Vote for Smith?!”
Bingo. That’s the point I’ve been making for more than year after the oft-biased reporting of the US Preventive Services Task Force’s mammography recommendations in November of 2009.
On many occasions that we’ve written about on this blog in recent years, CNN has demonstrated a bias in favor of screening – touting benefits, minimizing harms. Sanjay Gupta’s badgering of US Preventive Services Task Force member Lucy Marion will always stand out in my mind – and in the minds of many of who saw it – as opinionated “attack” journalism that reflects the polarization we often see in politics now creeping (leaping?) into health care and into health care journalism.
For a different view of how a different network handled the news, see NBC’s Nancy Snyderman on the Today Show, saying “blanket recommendations should be shoved aside…no one-size-fits-all.”
[2017 Update: This video is no longer available]
Meantime, Maureen Salamon, writing for HealthDay, was one of the few who mentioned the quandry of finding ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) with earlier mammograms, and also the large number needed to screen in order for just one woman to benefit:
“Some early, noninvasive breast cancers, known as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), never progress to dangerous cases…and mammogram detection may provoke aggressive treatment that ultimately is unnecessary or harmful.
Overall, about 1,900 women aged 39 to 49 would need to be “invited for screening” (though some might decline) to save one woman in that age range from dying of breast cancer, the ACOG said.”
Salamon had just attended the NIH Medicine in the Media workshop at Dartmouth College the previous week and the intensive evidence-based journalism training was undoubtedly fresh in her mind.
Reuters Health included a USPSTF member’s view – balance and perspective lacking in some stories:
“…that small benefit comes with a significant false positive rate, which results in additional testing, including unnecessary biopsies and associated pain and anxiety.”
Half of women screened annually in their 40s will have a false alarm on a mammogram, he said, meaning the test shows something suspicious that turns out to be harmless. Follow-up biopsies can be painful, expensive and carry a small risk of infections or other adverse effects.
With his patients, (the task force member) said, “my bottom line is that I will discuss mammography at age 40, I will recommend and encourage at age 50 and I will strongly encourage at age 60.”
And Deborah Kotz in the Boston Globe included skeptical perspectives that many stories lacked:
“…it is “a leap of faith” to assume that earlier detection via a mammogram can change the course of an aggressive cancer that is going to rapidly spread and kill a woman, said Dr. Lisa Schwartz of the Dartmouth Institute of Health Policy and Clinical Practice. It is not known, she said, how often mammograms detect slow-growing breast cancers that never would have become life-threatening yet still must be treated.
“The idea that it will be better for younger women to have more frequent screening,” said Schwartz, “is . . . not based on scientific evidence.”
And early screening may carry significant downsides, including a 50 percent likelihood that a woman who starts screening at age 40 will test positive when she really has nothing to worry about, warranting follow-up screening or, less commonly, a biopsy.”
I want to end with this reminder/acknowledgement/disclaimer:
I am not a physician. I do not give health care advice. Nothing I write here should be construed as giving health care advice.
I’m a veteran health care journalist who addresses bias and imbalance in stories.
When you review health care news every day as this project does and has done for more than 5 years, you begin to see patterns of institutional or even individual biases shine through in coverage over time. I’m going to keep watching and keep writing about it when I see it because it’s wrong.
Addenda almost 5 hours after original post:
Merrill Goozner once gave me grief for not disclosing that I once worked for CNN. Yes, in ancient times – 1983-1990 – so long ago as to make it almost irrelevant today. But there it is.
For more on media bias on mammography stories, see this recent blog post.