The story reviews various methods of screening for breast cancer and notes follow-up procedures (i.e. biopsies and other surgeries) if cancer is found via MRI after mammography. The story mentions some of the downsides of screening average-risk women with MRI in addition to mammography. The story, via discussion of actress Christina Applegate’s familial history of breast cancer, provides a general picture of who might be at higher-risk and a candidate for more sensitive screening. The story does not mention that MRI screening is not always covered by insurance for women at low to average risk of developing breast cancer. MRIs can cost $1000-1500 so these are about ten times as expensive as mammograms.
The story fails to mention the lack of good evidence for other screening recommendations. For example, the story notes that self breast exams "should begin at 20". There is little evidence that breast self-examinatin (BSE) lowers deaths from breast cancer, and SBEs are not recommended by themselves for detecting breast cancer, especially in higher-risk women. Based on current evidence, USPSTF does not recommend for or against BSE (USPSTF 2002).
While the American Cancer Society recommends annual mammograms starting at age 40, this is an area of controversy and one where women need to determine their individual risk and benefits of screening: http://www.annals.org/cgi/reprint/146/7/I-20.pdf
While the story discusses the cons of MRI screening, it does not mention that these same downsides (namely, increased risk of false positives, unnessessary treatment and anxiety) are the same for younger, lower to average risk women who have mammography alone.
The story does not list the cost of this adjunct screening tool to mammography. MRIs can cost $1000-1500 so these are about ten times as expensive as mammograms. The story does not mention that MRI screening is not always covered by insurance for women at low to average risk of developing breast cancer.
The story does not quantify the benefit of additional MRI screening for women who are considered high-risk. It doesn’t give viewers any sense of how much more MRIs may help. Overall, the story is thin on presenting any evidence.
The story does mention some of the downsides of screening average-risk women with MRI in addition to mammography. The story, via discussion of actress Christina Applegate’s familial history of breast cancer, provides a general picture of who might be at higher-risk and a candidate for more sensitive screening. However, one relative would not necessarily place a women in a higher-risk category.
| | |||
The story notes that self breast exams "should begin at 20". There is little evidence that breast self-examination (BSE) lowers deaths from breast cancer, and SBEs are not recommended by themselves for detecting breast cancer, especially in higher-risk women. Based on current evidence, USPSTF does not recommend for or against BSE (USPSTF 2002).
Experts disagree that mammography screening "should begin at 40", especially for women at low to average risk. http://www.annals.org/cgi/reprint/146/7/I-20.pdf
The story discusses the cons of additional MRI screening, but does not mention that these same downsides (namely, increased risk of false positives, unnessessary treatment and anxiety) are the same for younger, lower to average risk women who have mammography alone.
The story engages in disease-mongering in its conclusion: "What’s most important is to screen. One in eight women nowadays is going to get a breast cancer in her life, so as long as you get in for screening, I’m happy." The 1 in 8 statistic requires explanation. It is a lifetime incidence estimate. Many women misinterpret this to think that they have 1 in 8 chance right now at this time in their life. It is one of the misused and most misunderstood statistics in health care. The National Cancer Institute estimates that a typical 40-year old woman has less than a 2% (1 in 50) chance of developing breast cancer before 50, and less than a 4% (1 in 25) chance of developing it before age 60.
But the story also states, "But generally, we start home breast exam at age 20. I suggest every month, at the same time of the month, examine your breasts at home and get into your doctor for a breast exam at least every three years, earlier if you can." This is not an evidence-based recommendation and involves a physician-reporter giving personal advice and perhaps forgetting that she is now a reporter.
Information in the story is conveyed via the network medical reporter. Clinicians and/or radiologists who use MRI and mammograms in the clinical setting should have been interviewed.
The story mentions that Christina Applegate will receive treatment for breast cancer, but treatments are not discussed. However, the story focuses on screening methods, namely MRI for higher-risk women. Various screening methods are discussed.
The story reviews various methods of screening for breast cancer and notes follow-up procedures (i.e. biopsies and other surgeries) if cancer is found via MRI after mammography. The story does not mention that MRI screening should be performed at centers that also do breast biopsies. These centers may not be available to all women.
The story discusses the recent use of MRI in the context of listing other tools typically used for breast cancer detection.
The story does not appear to be driven by any news release, but by an actress and breast cancer advocate’s diagnosis of breast cancer via MRI and mammography.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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.
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