This story reports on a new study looking at breast cancer screening rates across hundreds of counties in the United States. It found that while higher breast cancer screening rates were associated with increased rates of breast cancer detection, more screening was not associated with reduced breast cancer mortality. The explanation for this finding, according to both the study and the story, is that higher levels of screening lead to overdiagnosis of breast cancer — that is, finding small. early-stage breast cancers that probably would never need treatment.
The story overall is solid and notably features some very helpful visuals — including a figure from the study that demonstrates the main study outcomes (click on the image for a closer look), as well as a risk communication tool that outlines the benefits and harms of mammography. But the story fell short when it came to discussing the many limitations of this study design and their possible impact on the results. Those limitations were discussed in the study itself, or perhaps would have come to light through inclusion of an additional expert perspective.
A growing body of evidence suggests that screening mammography is not as beneficial as once thought. But information questioning the benefits of screening mammography usually receives widespread criticism from screening advocates, which adds to confusion for many women on whether mammography is beneficial and necessary. Stories that clearly explain the findings of new research, and place the results in context with other research and expert guidelines, are therefore valuable to women who are contemplating whether to be screened and at what age.
There was no discussion of costs in this story or of insurance coverage for mammography. While many readers may understand that screening mammography is generally covered by insurance, it would have been helpful to state explicitly that mammograms in the U.S. are covered by the Affordable Care Act. More broadly, given that this study questions the effectiveness of mass breast screening, it’s worth at least asking what such screening is costing the health care system.
The story satisfactorily reports the main results of the study and describes the benefits of mammography as seen across a large body of research. It explains that in the study, “The number of diagnosed breast cancers rose with more screening, yet the number of deaths from breast cancer 10 years later remained stubbornly stable.” It doesn’t quantify the increase in breast cancer detection in the text (the study reported a 16% increase in breast cancer diagnoses for every 10 percentage point increase in screening), but it does include a figure from the study which clearly demonstrates that while more cancers were found, mortality from breast cancer remained stable.
The story also includes a risk communication illustration, based on a systematic review of available evidence, that presents the absolute mortality benefits (as well as harms) for women over 50 who participate in screening for at least 10 years.
The story mentions that screening may be more effective in women with a family history of breast cancer. It does not discuss whether the study found any significant results among demographic subgroups for whom screening mammography may be more effective, but it doesn’t appear that the authors were capable of making such distinctions based on the data available (see Evidence section below).
The story is mainly about harms and the fact that increased breast cancer screening was not associated with lower mortality rates in the study — suggesting that there is a high rate of overdiagnosis of breast cancer. “The trouble with overdiagnosis is that while the cancers doctors find wouldn’t have harmed their patients, the treatment and stress that result from the diagnosis probably will,” the story says. The story adds that estimates of the scope of the problem are “frustratingly broad — from less than 10 percent to 50 percent or more of women who get screened. In other words, we don’t actually know how bad the problem is.”
The story does not discuss the limitations to the study design, which were substantial and were explained in some detail in the paper that’s the basis for the story. The research study used ecological observations of large groups (not individuals) that are subject to inherent biases. In addition, the study authors explained that 10 years (the length of follow up in the study) might not be long enough to demonstrate mortality differences, especially for early stage breast cancer, and that detailed information such as tumor sub-type and information regarding treatment with adjuvant therapy are not available for review and consideration. There’s potential for confounding as well, as some of the factors associated with an increased risk of developing breast cancer such as income and (late) age at first birth are also factors associated with a higher likelihood of undergoing screening mammography. Lastly, the study authors noted that there is no way to tell if the women who died of breast cancer during the 10 years were actually the ones diagnosed during that time period.
The article did not engage in disease mongering.
The story cites independent commentary from an accompanying editorial that provides useful context. Inclusion of a second independent voice might have drawn attention to some of the study’s limitations as discussed above. The story doesn’t discuss potential conflicts of interest among the study authors, but the only conflict disclosed with the manuscript was related to a company that makes thermometers. Overall, this seems Satisfactory to us.
The alternative to mammography is not getting screened. The story suggests this is an option, especially for women who are under the age of 50. “Women with no risk factors for breast cancer should also know that they can wait until age 50 for their first screening,” the story says.
It’s obvious from the story that mammography is widely available.
The story notes that “this isn’t the first study to call into question the benefits of mammography and whether women are too often the victims of overdiagnosis — that is, being diagnosed with cancers that would not have been fatal or even harmful.”
The story brings in context from an accompanying editorial, risk communication tools, independent guidelines, and other studies of overdiagnosis. It clearly went beyond any news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
We connect the dots between the murder of #GeorgeFloyd , structural racism, and #publichealth with the help of @GeorgesBenjami7 of @PublicHealth , @annapoetic of @minneapolisgov , and @sandrogalea of @BUSPH https://twitter.com/PublicHealthUMN/status/1316813156249931777
"please do not project certainty where certainty simply doesn't exist"
Golden nugget of wisdom for emerging #science + #medicine journos looking not to fall for shiny happy PR bullshit.
HT @garyschwitzer + @HealthNewsRevu
Hear the rest here
👇🏽👇🏽👇🏽🎧🎙️
https://www.patreon.com/posts/42537673
New ep of @hilarious_is with @garyschwitzer of @HealthNewsRevu - he's the Michael Corleone of myth-busting in health and medicine news!
Just
Press
Play
#podcast #journalism #FactCheck #science #medicine
https://www.patreon.com/posts/42537673
Comments (1)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Dan Mayer
August 6, 2015 at 9:50 pmI’m not sure what this means, but when I look at those graphs, I see the number of outlier values getting less as the incidence of mammography increases. Anyone have any explanation for this? It suggests that in some situations there is lower cancer mortality while in some there is more (although the outliers on the high side are farther from the line than the low ones).
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