iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Mammogram Age Pushed Back To 50

First Posted: 03/18/10 06:12 AM ET Updated: 11/17/11 09:02 AM ET

Mammogram

NEW YORK (AP)- Most women don't need a mammogram in their 40s and should get one every two years starting at 50, a government task force said Monday. It's a major reversal that conflicts with the American Cancer Society's long-standing position.

Also, the task force said breast self-exams do no good and women shouldn't be taught to do them.

For most of the past two decades, the cancer society has been recommending annual mammograms beginning at 40.

But the government panel of doctors and scientists concluded that getting screened for breast cancer so early and so often leads to too many false alarms and unneeded biopsies without substantially improving women's odds of survival.

"The benefits are less and the harms are greater when screening starts in the 40s," said Dr. Diana Petitti, vice chair of the panel.

The new guidelines were issued by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, whose stance influences coverage of screening tests by Medicare and many insurance companies.

But Susan Pisano, a spokeswoman for America's Health Insurance Plans, an industry group, said insurance coverage isn't likely to change because of the new guidelines. No changes are planned in Medicare coverage either, said Dori Salcido, spokeswoman for the Health and Human Services department.

Experts expect the task force revisions to be hotly debated, and to cause confusion for women and their doctors.

"Our concern is that as a result of that confusion, women may elect not to get screened at all. And that, to me, would be a serious problem," said Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, the cancer society's deputy chief medical officer.

The guidelines are for the general population, not those at high risk of breast cancer because of family history or gene mutations that would justify having mammograms sooner or more often.

The new advice says:

_Most women in their 40s should not routinely get mammograms.

_Women 50 to 74 should get a mammogram every other year until they turn 75, after which the risks and benefits are unknown. (The task force's previous guidelines had no upper limit and called for exams every year or two.)

_The value of breast exams by doctors is unknown. And breast self-exams are of no value.

Medical groups such as the cancer society have been backing off promoting breast self-exams in recent years because of scant evidence of their effectiveness. Decades ago, the practice was so heavily promoted that organizations distributed cards that could be hung in the shower demonstrating the circular motion women should use to feel for lumps in their breasts.

The guidelines and research supporting them were released Monday and are being published in Tuesday's issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The new advice was sharply challenged by the cancer society.

"This is one screening test I recommend unequivocally, and would recommend to any woman 40 and over," the society's chief medical officer, Dr. Otis Brawley, said in a statement.

The task force advice is based on its conclusion that screening 1,300 women in their 50s to save one life is worth it, but that screening 1,900 women in their 40s to save a life is not, Brawley wrote.

That stance "is essentially telling women that mammography at age 40 to 49 saves lives, just not enough of them," he said. The cancer society feels the benefits outweigh the harms for women in both groups.

International guidelines also call for screening to start at age 50; the World Health Organization recommends the test every two years, Britain says every three years.

Breast cancer is the most common cancer and the second leading cause of cancer deaths in American women. More than 192,000 new cases and 40,000 deaths from the disease are expected in the U.S. this year.

Mammograms can find cancer early, and two-thirds of women over 40 report having had the test in the previous two years. But how much they cut the risk of dying of the disease, and at what cost in terms of unneeded biopsies, expense and worry, have been debated.

In most women, tumors are slow-growing, and that likelihood increases with age. So there is little risk by extending the time between mammograms, some researchers say. Even for the minority of women with aggressive, fast-growing tumors, annual screening will make little difference in survival odds.

The new guidelines balance these risks and benefits, scientists say.

The probability of dying of breast cancer after age 40 is 3 percent, they calculate. Getting a mammogram every other year from ages 50 to 69 lowers that risk by about 16 percent.

"It's an average of five lives saved per thousand women screened," said Georgetown University researcher Dr. Jeanne Mandelblatt.

Starting at age 40 would prevent one additional death but also lead to 470 false alarms for every 1,000 women screened. Continuing mammograms through age 79 prevents three additional deaths but raises the number of women treated for breast cancers that would not threaten their lives.

"You save more lives because breast cancer is more common, but you diagnose tumors in women who were destined to die of something else. The overdiagnosis increases in older women," Mandelblatt said.

She led six teams around the world who used federal data on cancer and mammography to develop mathematical models of what would happen if women were screened at different ages and time intervals. Their conclusions helped shape the new guidelines.

Several medical groups say they are sticking to their guidelines that call for routine screening starting at 40.

"Screening isn't perfect. But it's the best thing we have. And it works," said Dr. Carol Lee, a spokeswoman for the American College of Radiology. She suggested that cutting health care costs may have played a role in the decision, but Petitti said the task force does not consider cost or insurance in its review.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also has qualms. The organization's Dr. Hal Lawrence said there is still significant benefit to women in their 40s, adding: "We think that women deserve that benefit."

But Dr. Amy Abernethy of the Duke Comprehensive Cancer Center agreed with the task force's changes.

"Overall, I think it really took courage for them to do this," she said. "It does ask us as doctors to change what we do and how we communicate with patients. That's no small undertaking."

Abernethy, who is 41, said she got her first mammogram the day after her 40th birthday, even though she wasn't convinced it was needed. Now she doesn't plan to have another mammogram until she is 50.

Barbara Brenner, executive director of the San Francisco-based Breast Cancer Action, said the group was "thrilled" with the revisions. The advocacy group doesn't support screening before menopause, and will be changing its suggested interval from yearly to every two years, she said.

Mammograms, like all medical interventions, have risks and benefits, she said.

"Women are entitled to know what they are and to make their best decisions," she said. "These guidelines will help that conversation."

___

Medical Writer Marilynn Marchione reported from Milwaukee.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST HEALTHY LIVING

NEW YORK (AP)- Most women don't need a mammogram in their 40s and should get one every two years starting at 50, a government task force said Monday. It's a major reversal that conflicts with the Amer...
NEW YORK (AP)- Most women don't need a mammogram in their 40s and should get one every two years starting at 50, a government task force said Monday. It's a major reversal that conflicts with the Amer...
Filed by Priyanka Boghani  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 390
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (8 total)
11:22 AM on 11/20/2009
OK, this probably will irritate many people, but here goes. I am very, very tired of women complaining about their health issues, especially breast cancer. In reality, the number one killer of women is lung cancer from smoking, ask any oncologist; lung cancer does not convey a "womanly" image and doesn't get much press. Katie Couric and the CBS evening news had as her opening story this mammography brouhaha 3 nights in a row, while our President was in China dealing with our massive economic problems, and we continue to fight 2 wars; yet these issues were not covered those nights.

Men's health issues get very little press; however, more men die of prostate cancer than women die of breast cancer, yet far less money is spent on prostate cancer research than on breast cancer research. Where are the BLUE ribbon campaigns?
09:31 PM on 11/22/2009
hear ya chet.
11:22 AM on 11/19/2009
I have been confused over this issue, as it seems many of you all are. I suggest all of the women that share my worries check out Dr. Len Lichtenfeld's online chat today at noon ET. As stated in the article, he is a doctor with the American Cancer Society. I'm hoping he can answer all my questions and call my nerves! Here's the link: http://www.cancer.org/aspx/blog/Comments.aspx?id=332
09:15 AM on 11/19/2009
I think we've all been sold a bill of goods about yearly mammograms for all women starting at age 40.

From http://www.preventcancer.com/patients/mammography/ijhs_mammography.htm

'....Radiation from routine mammography poses significant cumulative risks of initiating and promoting breast cancer....the routine practice of taking four films for each breast results in .... 1 rad, focused on each breast rather than the entire chest .... Thus, premenopausal women undergoing annual screening over a ten-year period are exposed to a total of about 10 rads for each breast.... the premenopausal breast is highly sensitive to radiation, each rad of exposure increasing breast cancer risk by 1 percent, resulting in a cumulative 10 percent increased risk over ten years of premenopausal screening, usually from ages 40 to 50....'

I have no intention of subjecting myself to this level of risk before reaching menopause.

10 years ago, HRT was supposed to be good for women. Now it is known to increase the risk for cancer. 10 years from now, I believe the same will be known as true for mammography.

How do we know that all the early screenings via mammography over these past years have not actually INCREASED the amount of breast cancer that we are supposedly attempting to prevent and cure?

Thermography is a much safer, less expensive and more effective alternative to mammography for breast cancer screening. It exists today but is not made widely available to most women. Why not?
09:35 PM on 11/22/2009
good to hear people are getting the information the TV news crazies aren't willing to cover.

From my google search one study said 8 out of 100,000 women screened yearly with mammography for 10 years will develop cancer from the radiation from mammography.

Also, for every 1 woman correctly diagnosed with cancer via mammography, 10 will be incorrectly diagnosed and subjected to lumpectomy, radiation, chemo, mastectomy. Studies yet to done on how many deaths result from mammography mistakes.
photo
blueskyseas
Veni, Vedi, Velcro. I came, I saw, I stuck around
06:38 AM on 11/19/2009
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force was actually initiated by the Bush Administration.
Just so you know.
07:17 PM on 11/18/2009
This is how ObamaCare will be serve up

How do you like yours

One lump or two
photo
blueskyseas
Veni, Vedi, Velcro. I came, I saw, I stuck around
06:33 AM on 11/19/2009
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force was actually initiated by the Bush Administration.
Just so you know.
07:16 PM on 11/18/2009
This is how Obama Care will be served up

How do you like yours

One lump or two
07:16 PM on 11/18/2009
This is how ObamaCare will be served up

How do you like yours

One lump or two
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mommiablo
03:49 PM on 11/18/2009
I am amazed to read the post just before my last one calling for a "no" on the public option. This is antithetical to the facts - if indeed the people on this panel are mostly insurance-affiliated, then it is the INSURERS who are starting to ration, NOT the government. I believe that early mammograms are still covered by Medicaid, the public option.
06:05 PM on 11/18/2009
Get ready ladies for your new 'guidelines' if we end up with government run health care. Please work to kill this bill now
08:54 PM on 11/18/2009
I guess I wasn't clear. I desperately WANT a public option. It's the health insurance industry that wants the public option killed. I believe the insurance people made up this red herring phony "mammograms are not needed" to raise outcry against government involvement in health care to scuttle the health care reform in the Senate.
photo
blueskyseas
Veni, Vedi, Velcro. I came, I saw, I stuck around
06:34 AM on 11/19/2009
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force was actually initiated by the Bush Administration.
Just so you know.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mommiablo
03:15 PM on 11/18/2009
This is my initial research on the HEALTH INSURANCE AFFILIATIONS of just some of the board members of the US Preventive Services Task Force, the USPSTF. The USPSTF is the quasi-public task force under US Department of Health and Human Services which just issued the new reprehensible mammogram recommendations. This is pretty much all I need to know to understand that this is a precursor to reduced insurance coverage.

Sanford Schwartz - Blue Cross Blue Shield
Joy Melnikow – Healthwise
George Isham – HealthPartners, MedCenters, and University Health Care
David Grossman – Group Health
Diana Petitti – Kaiser Permanente
Michael LeFevre – Missouri University Health Care

Blogging has presented wonderful and sad stories about this issue. But please take action. Goggle these people, find their telephone numbers and leave a message on their work phones. Here are some other numbers:

Dr. Ned Calonge, Colorado Department of Public Health, Director of the US Preventive Services Task Force, telephone (303) 692 2011

Dr. Diana Petitti, Deputy Director of USPSTF (301) 427 1364

Dr. Jeanne Mandelblatt, researcher, Georgetown University Medical Research (202) 687 0812

Secretary HHS, Kathleen Sebelius (202) 205 5445

White House Comment Line 202 456 1111

Thank you!
02:54 PM on 11/18/2009
I am very cynical about the timing of this.
It follows the tried and true formula of making a 'problem' fit your 'solution'.
The Solution is No Medical insurance Reform.
1) The medical insurance industry does NOT want any reform/public option
a) The lobby owns the politicians
b) They arrange for a "Government" study to say mammograms are not needed.
2) The outcry is tremendous against this report
3) This reinforces the claim that the "Government" run health care would ration care.
4) People rush to demand their representatives vote against a Public Option.
The Insurance companies are free from reform AND they can continue to deny treatments (and won't pay for mammograms)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
joelaf
My micro bio is half full.
02:26 PM on 11/18/2009
Last year, a similar thing happened for men with prostate exams. They condensed the ages. The crux was "If we find it early, we can help. Later, the cure is worse than the disease". It seems like blood test for cancer are promising, but........... will insurance pay for it? As a 50 y/o widower with no kids, who cares if my junk works like a 19 y/o's?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mommiablo
02:15 PM on 11/18/2009
This blogging is lulling people into thinking they are taking action to make social change. If you want to express to people who have the ability to do something (rather than just complaining to other bloggers), call or write. Here is a start:

If you think this is reprehensible, if you doubt the new research, and if you believe that the timing is incriminating, call these people and express your opinion.

Dr. Ned Calonge, Colorado Department of Public Health, Director of the US Preventive Services Task Force, telephone (303) 692 2011

Dr. Diana Petitti, Deputy Director of USPSTF (301) 427 1364

Dr. Jeanne Mandelblatt, Georgetown University Medical Research (202) 687 0812

Secretary HHS, Kathleen Sebelius (202) 205 5445

White House comment line 202 456 1111

If you go online to the USPSTF website, pick a name from the list of task force members and help us research whether any are insurance-linked.
photo
blueskyseas
Veni, Vedi, Velcro. I came, I saw, I stuck around
06:36 AM on 11/19/2009
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force was actually initiated by the Bush Administration.
Just so you know.
10:22 AM on 11/18/2009
"... the two highest-quality trials found no reduction in mortality. Mammograms have been controversial since 2000, when a paper highlighting the results of the two highest-quality studies was published.

^ Gøtzsche PC, Nielsen M (2006). "Screening for breast cancer with mammography". Cochrane Database Syst Rev (4): CD001877. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001877.pub2. PMID 17054145.

Crushing the breast and exposing it to a lot of radiation every year never sounded or felt right to me so i won't do it. There is no history in my family and it makes as much sense to me as getting annual chest x-rays for early detection of lung cancer.

Never the less follow the money - possible scenarios are:
Some group was getting rich off of women having an unnecessary annual mammography but now the insurance companies don't want to have to pay for the screening anymore
Is there an alternative that will be marketed soon?
09:37 PM on 11/22/2009
I agree!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
amaycatbaker
08:01 AM on 11/18/2009
They used to x-ray feet to determine the proper foot size. Those machine were available to the public in shoe stores. People developed cancer from those foot x-ray machines.

I was dreading the mammogram, because it is an x-ray, and I had many of those when I was a kid. Maybe the study is a cost control, maybe it is good science, I don't know if there was an insurance person on this study.

There has to be new tech developed to detect cancer early, (breast, pancrease, lung, liver etc.), and treatments that don't include things that make people sicker, so this study might motivate someone to develop those.

Just don't forget someone in Utah owns those patents on breast cancer genes, so a scientist still has to pay that person, before study to actually save and cure woman can occur. So that is what we should be focusing on getting rid of patents on GENES!!!!!
10:43 AM on 11/18/2009
Yes, my mother took me to Buster Brown and my feet were x-rayd (sp?) regularly. They checked how the foot fit into the shoe, if the toe box was high enough, etc. I only came away with ugly oxfords, no disease.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
amaycatbaker
10:57 AM on 11/18/2009
Good for you, I celebrate that you are different. Some did get cancer, and you are a lucky one. :)
photo
blueskyseas
Veni, Vedi, Velcro. I came, I saw, I stuck around
06:37 AM on 11/19/2009
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force was actually initiated by the Bush Administration.
Just so you know.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CJWebber
I think we all love teachers.
04:24 AM on 11/18/2009
I have known 4 women who were diagnosed with breast cancer. Three died. They were all in their 40's.

50 years is too late. Just take a look at the obituaries in the newspaper and see how many women in their 40's died of breast cancer.