Breast cancer screening change shouldn’t be a surprise

When the United States Preventive Services Task Force decided to change its recommendation for routine mammography screening to start for women at age 50 instead of age 40, it caused quite a stir. From the considered story in the NYT to the N+O, front pages were aflame this morning.

In fact, the panel’s change shouldn’t be that much of a surprise. Books like UNC Dr. Nortin Hadler’s The Last Well Person, (for a great summary on the breast cancer screening lack-of-evidence issue check out this essay Hadler wrote for ABC news way back in 2007) and Shannon Brownlee’s excellent book Overtreated have pointed out the limits and possible harms of some cancer screening.

Indeed, the American Cancer Society, although it hasn’t changed its current recommendations, is reported to be reevaluating the evidence on certain types of screening as well.

We’ve been talking for a long time here at the Pulse about the health ramifications of overtreatment. The cost is important – as Brownlee points out, expert estimates of the amount of unnecessary care delivered in this country top $700 billion a year. By the way, that’s two thirds of the entire ten-year cost for health reform proposals now in Congress.

But cost is really a secondary issue – and this is a point that has trouble coming up in the news stories, mostly I think because people, news reporters included, have such a hard time accepting the idea that more health care, including more screening, is not always better health care. In fact, as the Preventive Services Task Force pointed out, it can actually be worse.

Take a less politically-charged example to see what I mean. A few years ago there was trend among top executives with gold-plated unlimited health plans and huge compensation packages to go in for a full-body CAT scan once a year even if they were perfectly healthy. This “ultimate screen” would presumably detect problems missed otherwise and enable early treatment.

Thankfully, this trend faded quickly. Why? A standard CAT scan gives someone the radiation dose of around 500 x-rays. Have a couple and you’re getting radiation exposure equivalent to the average dose many survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki received. Getting that sort of radiation when there is no need to treat you is foolhardy and will inevitably lead to further health problems. The risks unquestionably far outweigh the chances of picking up some problem that wouldn’t be caught by a family physician in a routine check-up.

In a less dramatic way, this is what’s happening with under-50 routine breast cancer screening. The scan can often be worse than the cure. What we need is great science and a clear and dispassionate look at the evidence. This is very hard. Knowing someone who had breast cancer found and treated through under-50 mammography brings a personal story to add to our intense faith in more-is-always-better medicine. It’s especially hard to think that some people who were treated for cancer didn’t need to be treated at all.

But the evidence regarding under-50 routine mammography is compelling. We shouldn’t stop routine screening because it costs less. We should stop because it is better for people’s health.


  1. doug pratt

    November 17, 2009 at 11:41 am

    There’s a Breast and Lung cancer screen being developed that uses police dogs to smell breath samples to find the waste chemicals from cancer cells. They have a sign up list at Dogs4cancer.com

  2. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by annierose, Todd . Todd said: Breast cancer screening change shouldn't be a surprise: A few years ago there was trend among top executive.. http://bit.ly/1DnUst […]

  3. Aftercancer

    November 18, 2009 at 9:27 am

    Sorry Adam but I could not disagree with you more. 62,000 women under age 50 were diagnosed with breast cancer in 2003. Women have already been told to stop doing breast self exams and now the powers that be want to remove mammograms. How exactly would you suggest that these 62,000 women find out they have cancer?

  4. IBXer

    November 18, 2009 at 9:48 am

    Let the rationing begin!

  5. uberVU - social comments

    November 18, 2009 at 10:01 am

    Social comments and analytics for this post…

    This post was mentioned on Twitter by felinelovers: Breast cancer screening change shouldn’t be a surprise: A few years ago there was trend among top executive.. http://bit.ly/1DnUst

Check Also

Senator Richard Burr: Makes up his own facts about NC Medicaid in order to criticize it

North Carolina’s Senator Burr used to be a ...

Top Stories from NCPW

  • News
  • Commentary

A pivotal legislative task force may be just beginning its dive into North Carolina’s school funding [...]

The controversy over “Silent Sam,” the Confederate monument on UNC’s Chapel Hill campus, has been ra [...]

North Carolina tries to mine its swine and deal with a poop problem that keeps piling up A blanket o [...]

This story is part of "Peak Pig," an examination of the hog industry co-published with Env [...]

Five years ago, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a jaw-dropping civil rights lawsuit again [...]

Will Burr and Tillis really vote for this? For much of the 20th Century, one of the labels that Amer [...]

President Trump and Congressional Republicans aim to rebrand enormous tax cuts for the wealthiest ho [...]

20—number of years since a bipartisan coalition in Congress passed the Children’s Health Insurance P [...]

Spotlight on Journalism

We invite you to join a special celebration of investigative journalism! The evening will feature Mike Rezendes, a member of the Pulitzer Prize-winning Boston Globe Spotlight Team known for their coverage of the cover-up of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church.

Tickets available NOW!

Spotlight On Journalism

This event will benefit NC Policy Watch, a project of the North Carolina Justice Center. Sponsorship opportunities available now!

Featured | Special Projects

NC Budget 2017
The maze of the NC Budget is complex. Follow the stories to follow the money.
Read more

NC Redistricting 2017
New map, new districts, new lawmakers. Here’s what you need to know about gerrymandering in NC.
Read more