Comments on: Women should still get regular mammograms http://www.efitnessnow.com/news/2009/11/28/women-should-still-get-regular-mammograms/ Your Health And Fitness Guide Wed, 04 May 2011 02:58:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: ignoranceisalearnedbehavior http://www.efitnessnow.com/news/2009/11/28/women-should-still-get-regular-mammograms/comment-page-1/#comment-19696 ignoranceisalearnedbehavior Sun, 29 Nov 2009 04:15:26 +0000 http://www.efitnessnow.com/?p=2435#comment-19696 Your numbers are suspect and do not marry with the published research (meta-analysis of lots of other studies). The recommendations are based on actual numbers of deaths without routine screening compared to routine screening between ages 40-50. The difference between the two approaches shows a differnce in mortality of 680 people per year. And 220000 or so false positives along with, if I recall correctly, many thousands of unnecessary procedures (biopsies, mass removals etc.). Changes in HRT and improvements in treatments (such as increased levels in Chemo) have a great impact in recent cancer rate reductions (though I am by no means suggesting that at the right time, with sensible intervals mammograms are not essential) than mammograms on the age group under review. Even mammograms, with all their false positives are only about 80% successful in spotting cancers. You also fail to divide progress in overall breast cancer reduction rates into age groups. The reason for NOT recommending routine scanning is directly referential to age, arguments FOR routine scanning should also have statistics which likewise refer to age. You seem to be advocating all women in the specified age group (40-50) should continue testing, then you're (using you figures) looking at an annual cost of about $2.2 billion, for 680 lives per year. That's $3.2 Million per extra life for diagnosis (compared to not having routine annual screening). That is (close to) the actual cost per life, this rarely gets a mention. Personally I think it's worthwhile, but you can see why the procedure might be under review. Your statement suggesting that more women would live if more had mammograms is most relevant when applied to specific age-groups; you could reduce the number of deaths by scanning a greater proportion of / all 50-65 years olds far more effectively than continuing the 40-50 age group, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of false (proportionally greater) positives in the younger group. US cancer treatment rates great, but little or no heed is paid to the fact that they include a number of treatments for cancers which are, essentially unnecessary treatments on benign growth. The fact is that testing, particularly breast cancer testing, is not very accurate (10% false positive, 20% false negative). This is perhaps where the biggest and most effective improvements could be made. Your numbers are suspect and do not marry with the published research (meta-analysis of lots of other studies). The recommendations are based on actual numbers of deaths without routine screening compared to routine screening between ages 40-50. The difference between the two approaches shows a differnce in mortality of 680 people per year. And 220000 or so false positives along with, if I recall correctly, many thousands of unnecessary procedures (biopsies, mass removals etc.).

Changes in HRT and improvements in treatments (such as increased levels in Chemo) have a great impact in recent cancer rate reductions (though I am by no means suggesting that at the right time, with sensible intervals mammograms are not essential) than mammograms on the age group under review. Even mammograms, with all their false positives are only about 80% successful in spotting cancers. You also fail to divide progress in overall breast cancer reduction rates into age groups. The reason for NOT recommending routine scanning is directly referential to age, arguments FOR routine scanning should also have statistics which likewise refer to age.

You seem to be advocating all women in the specified age group (40-50) should continue testing, then you’re (using you figures) looking at an annual cost of about $2.2 billion, for 680 lives per year. That’s $3.2 Million per extra life for diagnosis (compared to not having routine annual screening). That is (close to) the actual cost per life, this rarely gets a mention. Personally I think it’s worthwhile, but you can see why the procedure might be under review.

Your statement suggesting that more women would live if more had mammograms is most relevant when applied to specific age-groups; you could reduce the number of deaths by scanning a greater proportion of / all 50-65 years olds far more effectively than continuing the 40-50 age group, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of false (proportionally greater) positives in the younger group.

US cancer treatment rates great, but little or no heed is paid to the fact that they include a number of treatments for cancers which are, essentially unnecessary treatments on benign growth. The fact is that testing, particularly breast cancer testing, is not very accurate (10% false positive, 20% false negative). This is perhaps where the biggest and most effective improvements could be made.

]]>