Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
New York Times Breast Cancer Survivors

New York Times Breast Cancer Survivors

Ratings: (0)|Views: 574 |Likes:
Published by Gary Moller
FOR decades women have been told that one of the most important things they can do to protect their health is to have regular mammograms. But over the past few years, it’s become increasingly clear that these screenings are not all they’re cracked up to be.
FOR decades women have been told that one of the most important things they can do to protect their health is to have regular mammograms. But over the past few years, it’s become increasingly clear that these screenings are not all they’re cracked up to be.

More info:

Categories:Types, Research
Published by: Gary Moller on May 28, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/22/2014

pdf

text

original

 
Search Opinion
Connect WithUs on Twitter
For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinionand tohear from theeditorial pageeditor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT.
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Cancer Survivor or Victim of Overdiagnosis?
ByH. GILBERT WELCHPublished: November 21, 2012
Hanover, N.H.FOR decades women have been toldthat one of the most important thingsthey can do to protect their health is tohave regularmammograms. But overthe past few years, it’s becomeincreasingly clear that thesescreenings are not all they’re crackedup to be. The latest piece of evidenceappears in a study in Wednesday’sNew England Journal of Medicine,conducted by the oncologist Archie Bleyer and me.The study looks at the big picture, the effect of three decades of mammography screening in the United States. After correcting forunderlying trends and the use of hormone replacement therapy, we found that theintroduction of screening has been associated with about 1.5 million additional womenreceiving a diagnosis of early stage breast cancer.That would be a good thing if it meant that 1.5 million
 fewer
 women had gotten adiagnosis of late-stage breast cancer. Then we could say that screening had advancedthetime of diagnosis and provided the opportunity of reduced mortality for 1.5 million women.But instead, we found that there were only around 0.1 million fewer women with adiagnosis of late-stage breast cancer. This discrepancy means there was a lot of overdiagnosis: more than a million women who were told they had early stagecancermost of whom underwent surgery,chemotherapy or radiation — for a “cancer” that wasnever going to make them sick. Although it’s impossible to know which women these are,that’s some pretty serious harm.But even more damaging is what these data suggest about the benefit of screening. Ifitdoes not advance the time of diagnosis of late-stage cancer, it won’t reduce mortality. Infact, we found no change in the number of women with life-threatening metastatic breastcancer.The harm of overdiagnosis shouldn’t come as a surprise. Six years ago, a long-termfollow-up of a randomized trial showed that about one-quarter of cancers detected by screening were overdiagnosed. And this study reflected mammograms as used in the1980s. Newer digital mammograms detect a lot more abnormalities, and the estimates of overdiagnosis have risen commensurately: now somewhere between a third and half of screen-detected cancers.The news on the benefits of screening isn’t any better. Some of the original trials from back in the ’80s suggested that mammography reduced breast cancer mortality by as much as25 percent. This figure became the conventional wisdom. In the last two years, however,three investigations in Europe came to a radically different conclusion: mammographyhaseither a limited impact on breast cancer mortality (reducing it by less than 10 percent) ornone at all.
Log In With Facebook 
The ObamacareShock Nonprofit ApplicantsChafing at I.R.S.Tested PoliticalLimits
MOST E-MAILEDRECOMMENDED FOR YOU
Log in to discover more articlesbased on what you‘ve read.Log in to see what your friends are sharingon nytimes.com.Privacy Policy|What’s This?
What’s Popular Now
1.
 ARTSBEAT
 Angelina Jolie's Aunt Dies of Breast Cancer2.Postscript in Pink: Rule Kept Bats in Rack 3.
WELL
Battling Cancer Together4. A Castle Becomes a Cash Register5.
NEW MUSIC
New Albums by Laura Marling, TerenceBlanchard, Frankie J and Cecile McLorinSalvant6.
ON THE ROAD
 With Everyone a Critic, Hoteliers Struggleto Cope7.Brazil: Mayor Punches Resident in Face8.
DAVID BROOKS
Heroes of Uncertainty 9.
LETTER
How Much Salt?10.
M.L.B. ROUNDUP
Twins Win as Umpires Get It Right
HOME PAGETODAY'S PAPERVIDEOMOST POPULAR
 WORLDU.S.N.Y. / REGIONBUSINESSTECHNOLOGYSCIENCEHEALTHSPORTSOPINIONARTSSTYLETRAVEL
JOBSREAL ESTATEAUTOS
FACEBOOKTWITTERGOOGLE+SAVEE-MAILSHAREPRINTREPRINTS
Subscribe:Digital/Home DeliveryLog InRegister NowHelp U.S. Edition
Cancer Survivor or Victim of Overdiagnosis? - NYTimes.comhttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/22/opinion/cancer-survivor-or-victim...1 of 328/05/2013 8:04 p.m.
 
Feeling depressed? Don’t be. There’s good news here, too: breast cancer mortality hasfallen substantially in the United States and Europe. But it’s not about screening. It’s abouttreatment. Our therapies for breast cancer are simply better than they were 30 yearsago. As treatment improves, the benefit of screening diminishes. Think about it: because wecan treat most patients who developpneumonia, there’s little benefit to trying to detectpneumonia early. That’s why we don’t screen for pneumonia.So here is what we now know: the mortality benefit of mammography is much smaller,and the harm of overdiagnosis much larger, than has been previously recognized.But to be honest, that general message has been around for more than a decade. Why isn’tit getting more traction?The reason is that no other medical test has been as aggressively promoted asmammograms — efforts that have gone beyond persuasion to guilt and even coercion (“Ican’t be your doctor if you don’t get one”). And proponents have used the most misleadingscreening statistic there is: survival rates. A recentKomen foundation campaigntypifiesthe approach: “Early detection saves lives. The five-year survival rate for breast cancer when caught early is 98 percent. When it’s not? It decreases to 23 percent.”Survival rates always go up with early diagnosis: people who get a diagnosis earlierin life will live longer with their diagnosis, even if it doesn’t change their time of deathby oneiota. And diagnosing cancer in people whose “cancer” was never destined to kill themwillinflate survival rates — even if the number of deaths stays exactly the same. In short, telleveryone they have cancer, and survival will skyrocket.Screening proponents have also encouraged the public to believe two things that arepatently untrue. First, that every woman who has a cancer diagnosed by mammography has had her life saved (consider those “Mammograms save lives. I’m the proof” T-shirts for breast cancer survivors). The truth is, those survivors are much more likely to havebeen victims of overdiagnosis. Second, that a woman who died from breast cancer “could have been saved” had her cancer been detected early. The truth is, a few breast cancers aredestined to kill no matter what we do. What motivates proponents to use these tactics? Largely, it’s sincere faith in the virtue of early diagnosis, the belief that screening must be good for women. And 30 years ago,when we started down this road, they may have been right. In light of what we know now, it is wrong to continue down it. Let’s offer the proponents amnesty and move forward. What should be done? First and foremost, tell the truth: woman really do have a choice. While no one can dismiss the possibility that screening may help a tiny number of women,there’s no doubt that it leads many, many more to be treated for breast cancerunnecessarily. Women have to decide for themselves about the benefit and harms.But health care providers can also do better. They can look less hard for tiny cancers andprecancers and put more effort into differentiating between consequential andinconsequential cancers. We must redesign screening protocols to reduce overdiagnosis orstop population-wide screening completely. Screening could be targeted instead to thoseat the highest risk of dying from breast cancer — women with strong family historiesorgenetic predispositions to the disease. These are the women who are most likely to benefitand least likely to be overdiagnosed.One final plea: Can we please stop using screening mammography as measure of how wellour health care system is performing? That’s beginning to look like a cruel joke: cruel because it leads doctors to harass women into compliance; a joke because no one canargue this is either a public health imperative or a valid measure of the quality ofcare.Breast canceris arguably the most important cancer for a nonsmoking woman to careabout. Diagnostic mammography — when a woman with a breast lumpgets amammogram to learn if it’s something to worry about — is an important tool. No oneargues about this. Pre-emptive mammography screening, on the other hand, is, at best, isa very mixed bag — it most likely causes more health problems than it solves.
 H. Gilbert Welch is a professor of medicine at the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policyand Clinical Practice and an author of “Overdiagnosed: Making People Sick in the Pursuit of Health.” 
What’s This? |Don’t Show
Cancer Survivor or Victim of Overdiagnosis? - NYTimes.comhttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/22/opinion/cancer-survivor-or-victim...2 of 328/05/2013 8:04 p.m.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->