You judge.Two significantly different frames were used to tell the story of a paper in The Lancet.
The Associated Press (AP) headlined it: Mammograms: For 1 life saved, 3 overdiagnosed. Excerpt:
“It’s clear that screening saves lives,” said Harpal Kumar, chief executive of Cancer Research U.K. “But some cancers will be treated that would never have caused any harm and unfortunately, we can’t yet tell which cancers are harmful and which are not.”
Each year, more than 300,000 women aged 50 to 52 are offered a mammogram through the British program. During the next 20 years of screening every three years, 1 percent of them will get unnecessary treatment such as chemotherapy, surgery or radiation for a breast cancer that wouldn’t ever be dangerous. The review was published online Tuesday in the Lancet journal.
Some critics said the review was a step in the right direction.
“Cancer charities and public-health authorities have been misleading women for the past two decades by giving too rosy a picture of the benefits,” said Karsten Jorgensen, a researcher at the Nordic Cochrane Centre in Copenhagen who has previously published papers on overdiagnosis.
“It’s important they have at least acknowledged screening causes substantial harms,” he said, adding that countries should now re-evaluate their own programs.
In the United States, a government-appointed task force recommends women at average risk of cancer get mammograms every two years starting at age 50. But the American Cancer Society and other groups advise women to get annual mammograms starting at age 40.
In recent years, the British program has been slammed for focusing on the benefits of mammograms and downplaying the risks.
Maggie Wilcox, a breast-cancer survivor and member of the expert panel, said the current information on mammograms given to British women was inadequate.
“I went into (screening) blindly without knowing about the possibility of overdiagnosis,” said Wilcox, 70, who had a mastectomy several years ago. “I just thought, ‘It’s good for you, so you do it.’ ”
Knowing what she knows now about the problem of overtreatment, Wilcox says she still would have chosen to get screened. “But I would have wanted to know enough to make an informed choice for myself.”
But the French news agency Agence France-Presse (AFP) reported, “Breast cancer screening saves lives, says study.” It’s lead line:
“The benefits of preemptive breast cancer screening outweigh the risks, a study said Tuesday, insisting the practice saves thousands of lives.”
And the final line in the AFP story:
Its work, said The Lancet, “should begin to lay the benefits versus harm controversy to rest”.
Really? Let’s see.
Addendum on Oct. 31: Dr. Otis Brawley of the American Cancer Society reacted to the study on the ACS blog. Excerpt:
“We have overwhelming evidence showing that mammography starting at age 40 saves lives and is even more effective in older populations. The data also suggests screening has harms. That’s a part of the message that has often been lost in vigorous efforts to encourage screening.”
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Gary Fradin
November 5, 2012 at 11:43 amInterestingly, we no longer buy cars just because they get ‘good’ gas mileage. Rather, we ask ‘exactly how many miles per gallon?’
We’re only just starting to ask the ‘exactly how many lives saved’ questions about medicine.
I, for one, view a test differently if it saves 1 life per 10,000 people screened over 10 years or 3,000 lives per 10,000 people screened over 10 years.
Ditto for harm.
Here’s hoping that one day medicine will actually become a science.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like