New Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations Cause Controversy

Photo by yonjiet via Flickr
Rarely do medical recommendations or clinical guidelines receive such immediate and passionate attention as those released this month by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), an independent panel of doctors and scientists who make recommendations to the Department of Health & Human Services. In a striking detour from prior recommendations by the Task Force and those of the American Cancer Society (ACS) that women over 40 receive a mammogram every one to two years, the Task Force now recommends:
- “against routine screening mammography in women aged 40 to 49 years”;
- “biennial screening mammography for women aged 50 to 74 years”;
- “against teaching breast self-examination (BSE)” (emphasis added).
In a radio interview on the new guidance, Dr. Bruce Calonge, chair of the Task Force, was asked about the USPSTF recommendation against routine screening for women in their 40’s and “the possibility that some women may die as a
result of not having routine mammograms.” Calonge’s astonishing answer:
“what women really need to understand in that decade is that overall reduction in mortality, which is for all comers in that age group, only about 15%, because breast cancer is relatively rare in that age group, that benefit is really quite small…”
Although he claimed that cost analysis had no place in the Task Force’s recommendations, later, focusing on early detection generally, he repeated,
“I think one of the things that is important to say… that mammography’s benefit is only a 15% reduction in mortality.”
Kathleen Sebelius, HHS Secretary, has clarified that the federal policy on breast cancer screening has not changed, despite the Task Force’s recommendations. In response to concerns that patients who seek mammograms before the age of 50 would not be covered by health insurance, Sebelius stated that she “would be very surprised if any private insurance company changed its mammography coverage decisions as a result of this action.” Despite such assurances, if past experience is a guide insurance companies will use these criteria to determine coverage.
A number of professional and advocacy groups have responded to the Task Force’s November 16 recommendation. The ACS continues to recommend annual screening using mammography and clinical breast examination for all women beginning at age 40. The American College of Radiology issued a frankly titled statement, “USPSTF Mammography Recommendations Will Result in Countless Unnecessary Breast Cancer Deaths Each Year” and labeled the recommendations “cost cutting.” And the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists continues to recommend a screening mammography every 1-2 years for women aged 40-49 years and every year for women 50 and over, as well as to recommend BSE.
So what would the task force’s mammography recommendations mean for patients? The changes to the recommendations extend beyond the age at which they recommend beginning mammography screening. For example, the 2002 USPSTF recommendations explained, “[t]he precise age at which the benefits from screening mammography justify the potential harms is a subjective judgment and should take into account patient preferences” (emphasis added). The elimination of the term “preferences” and the focus on “patient context” and the “patient’s values regarding specific benefits and harms” indicates a move toward evidence-based medicine, whereby a patient’s inclinations and personality are taken less into consideration or play a less significant role in predicting outcomes. In a November 17 New York Times article, the author asks,
Are you the sort for whom shivering in a paper gown, enduring discomfort and waiting a week for results is so unnerving that you are thrilled for a decade-long reprieve? Or are you that woman who gets an extra breast sonogram with your gynecologist even when it is not medically indicated? Do you trust scientists or prefer your own gut?
These concerns seem more like preferences than medically-supported decision-making factors. The 2009 recommendations instruct that “the patient’s values regarding specific benefits and harms” be taken into account — but do not explain how far “patient context” be considered. The recommendations do not apply to women with “known underlying genetic mutation or a history of chest radiation.” Beyond these two exceptions, how will doctors and patients make individual decisions to start regular, biennial screening mammography? The recommendations should be appreciated for confirming — to an extent — that the decision to begin regular screening mammography is individual. The doctor and patient, in collaboration, should consider the patient’s risk tolerance, family history, and any other applicable factors. Sebelius recommends that patients “[k]eep doing what you have been doing for years — talk to your doctor about your individual history, ask questions, and make the decision that is right for you.” It is unclear how the Task Force’s recommendations could affect the decision to begin mammography in an educated and reasoned way.
The Task Force’s self-examination recommendation is also worrisome. The USPSTF states that “there is moderate or high certainty that [BSE] has no net benefit or that the harms outweigh the benefits.” However, discouraging the use of self-examination — a short, free, easy, and non-invasive process — might seem astonishing to many, particularly those who have known someone for whom a BSE has been the means by which breast cancer was first discovered. Appreciating the concern about BSE leading to higher incidences of biopsies, additional screenings, and false-positive test results, with the increasing focus on disease prevention, this recommendation seems, at best, counter-intuitive, particularly when taking into account those who are uninsured and may not pursue other methods of breast cancer screening.



Posts from Health Reform Watch have been cited by media sources throughout the country, including The New York Times, Washington Post, L.A. Times, Kaiser Health News, The Health Care Blog, NPR's Planet Money Blog, Duke Univ. Med. Center News, American Health Line Alerts, BusinessWeek.com, Concurring Opinions, Balkinization, The New England Journal of Medicine, Harvard's Nieman Foundation for Journalism, Las Vegas Sun, Maggie Mahar, Ezra Klein, Tom Geoghegan, and the official homepage of the Office of the Democratic Majority Leader of the House of Representatives, Steny Hoyer.
I am appalled at the task force suggesting woman to wait until they are forty before getting a mammogram. I am a breast cancer survivor since 2000 and was 42. Through a regular GYN exam a lump was detected in my breast. It was in the early stages and with chemo, radiation and tamoxiphin I have been cancer free.
Saying that 15% of the mortality rate in early breast cancer detection is not enough precious women’s lives to save!
Now, if it were your sister, mother, wife or friend…you might think different! Every life is worth prolonging regardless of the percentage. Breast Cancer recovery has made great strides in prevention through early detection!!!! Great teachings, awareness’s, The Cure Races, Fundraising and technology has been advanced and needs to continue to save lives.
We must continue advancing the cure and its preventive procedures…not delete them!!!