The authors of the paper in JAMA Internal Medicine, “Outcomes of Screening Mammography by Frequency, Breast Density, and Postmenopausal Hormone Therapy,” wrote:
Controversy exists about the frequency women should undergo screening mammography and whether screening interval should vary according to risk factors beyond age.
And concluded, as a result of the analysis they report:
Women aged 50 to 74 years, regardless of breast density or hormone replacement therapy use, can undergo biennial rather than annual mammography because biennial screening does not increase the risk of presenting with advanced disease but does substantially reduce the cumulative risk of a false-positive mammography result and biopsy recommendation. Women aged 40 to 49 years with extremely dense breasts who choose to undergo mammography should consider annual screening to decrease the risk of advanced-stage disease but should be informed that annual screening leads to a high cumulative probability of a false-positive mammography result because of the additional screening examinations.
On CBS, Dr. Jon LaPook presented a careful report for more than 2 minutes, only to have substitute anchor Bob Schieffer conclude, in the post-package chit-chat with LaPook:
“Well to be safe, you should get a mammogram.”
Was he listening to the previous report?
LaPook stammered some unintelligible response (I listened to it 6 times and couldn’t understand it) – perhaps staggered by what Schieffer just said.
I have always admired Schieffer and still do. But these semi-scripted followup discussions between reporter and anchor are sometimes silly. When they stay on-script, it’s obvious and sounds pre-arranged. And when they go off-script, they can often blow up.
False-positive findings on screening mammography causes long-term psychosocial harm: 3 years after a false-positive finding, women experience psychosocial consequences that range between those experienced by women with a normal mammogram and those with a diagnosis of breast cancer.
Which is just one more reason why Schieffer’s simplistic statement/summary was journalistically unsound.
Follow us on Facebook, and on Twitter: