| Screening Mammography Found Useless in New Study
by Dr Jeffrey Dach MD
October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month which kicks off an advertising campaign to convince women to undergo screening mammography with the assumption of benefit. As you will read below, this assumption many not be correct. We now have many studies showing screening mammography does little to reduce mortality from breast cancer. (1-8)
Above left image: Mammogram screening courtesy of NIH and Wikimedia commons.
“Countries of each pair had similar healthcare services and prevalence of risk factors for breast cancer mortality but differing implementation of mammography screening, with a gap of about 10- 15 years. ” (1)
“From 1989 to 2006, deaths from breast cancer decreased by 29% in Northern Ireland and by 26% in the Republic of Ireland; by 25% in the Netherlands and by 20% in Belgium and 25% in Flanders; and by 16% in Sweden and by 24% in Norway.” (1)Breast cancer mortality in paired European countries with similar socioeconomic status and access to treatment were comparable after 1989, despite a 10-15 year difference in implementation of mammography screening (1) These conclusions had already been found in previous studies (5-8)
A Radiologist Speaks Out- Overdiagnosis and Overtreatment with Little Mortality Benefit
Dr Keen explained.
Dr. Keen added.
Our Breast Cancer Prevention Program
Rather than rely on screening mammography which cannot prevent breast cancer, or even reduce mortality, a more effective program of breast cancer prevention involves the following:
4) Progesterone Deficiency is a risk factor for breast cancer. Bio-Identical Progesterone is cancer protective .(9-10)
5) Low Serum Selenium level is a risk factor for breast cancer, and Selenium Supplementation is protective.
6) Supplements such as Indole 3-Carbinol, Di-Indole-Methane, and calcium D glucarate, all reduce risk for breast cancer.
Articles with related interest:
Iodine Treats Breast Cancer, Overwhelming Evidence by Jeffrey Dach MD
Breast cancer mortality in neighbouring European countries with different levels of screening but similar access to treatment: trend analysis of WHO mortality database
BMJ. 2011; 343: d4411. Philippe Autier, research director,1 Mathieu Boniol, senior statistician,1 Anna Gavin, director,2 and Lars J Vatten, professor3 1International Prevention Research Institute, 95 Cours Lafayette, 69006 Lyon, France 2Northern Ireland Cancer Registry, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK 3Department of Public Health, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
To compare trends in breast cancer mortality within three pairs of neighbouring European countries in relation to implementation of screening.Design Retrospective trend analysis.
Setting Three country pairs (Northern Ireland (United Kingdom) v Republic of Ireland, the Netherlands v Belgium and Flanders (Belgian region south of the Netherlands), and Sweden v Norway).Data sources WHO mortality database on cause of death and data sources on mammography screening, cancer treatment, and risk factors for breast cancer mortality.
Main outcome measures Changes in breast cancer mortality calculated from linear regressions of log transformed, age adjusted death rates. Joinpoint analysis was used to identify the year when trends in mortality for all ages began to change.
Results From 1989 to 2006, deaths from breast cancer decreased by 29% in Northern Ireland and by 26% in the Republic of Ireland; by 25% in the Netherlands and by 20% in Belgium and 25% in Flanders; and by 16% in Sweden and by 24% in Norway. The time trend and year of downward inflexion were similar between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and between the Netherlands and Flanders. In Sweden, mortality rates have steadily decreased since 1972, with no downward inflexion until 2006. Countries of each pair had similar healthcare services and prevalence of risk factors for breast cancer mortality but differing implementation of mammography screening, with a gap of about 10- 15 years.
Conclusions The contrast between the time differences in implementation of mammography screening and the similarity in reductions in mortality between the country pairs suggest that screening did not play a direct part in the reductions in breast cancer mortality.
Conclusions and policy implications
The contrast between the timing of breast cancer screening being implemented and the similarity in mortality reduction between the country pairs do not suggest that a large proportion of the mortality reduction after 1990 can be attributed to mammography screening. Improvements in treatment and in the efficiency of healthcare systems may be more plausible explanations.
Our study adds further population data to the evidence of studies that have used various designs and found that mammography screening by itself has little detectable impact on mortality due to breast cancer.14 44 51 52
What is already known on this topic Breast cancer mortality is decreasing in many countries but the association with mammography screening is difficult to appraise
Cervical cancer mortality decreased earlier and more strongly in those Nordic countries that implemented nationwide screening programmes compared with delayed screening
What this study adds
Breast cancer mortality in paired European countries with similar socioeconomic status and access to treatment were comparable after 1989, despite a 10-15 year difference in implementation of mammography screening
The downward trends in mortality started before or shortly after the implementation of the screening programme The greatest reductions were in women aged 40-49, regardless of the availability of screening in this age group; reductions in women aged 70-79 were highly variable and did not correlate with the timing of screening in younger age groups
Mammograms Not Effective In Lowering Breast Cancer Mortality
Are screening mammograms effective in reducing deaths from breast cancer?
Is Breast Cancer Screening Actually Beneficial?
It is the expected norm within the medical community that women — especially those over 40 or with a family history of breast cancer — should get their annual mammography without fail. But how effective of a tool is it in actually saving lives? According to a recent study by an international team of researchers at various European institutions, the answer is that it’s not especially effective.
Breast cancer screening was not shown to have a major impact on the reduction of breast cancer mortality in the recent past.1
While the mortality rates from breast cancer have certainly gone down in most developed countries in the last two decades, it would seem that the lower numbers might not be attributable to mammography.
MAMMOGRAMS ARE MISSING CANCERS! Dr. Sanford Pinna Aug 05, 2011
Benefit is Controversial Dr. John Keen Weighing in with his opinion, John Keen, MD, attending radiologist at Cook County John H. Stroger Hospital in Chicago, Illinois, supported Dr. Autier’s assertion that the benefit of mammography is controversial. “As usual, Dr. Lee won’t accept the evidence and remains the key mammography marketer for the ACR,” he told Medscape Medical News. “I noticed her new line of reasoning — that ‘therapy cannot cure advanced cancers.’ The problem here is that screening has not decreased the incidence of advanced cancer. Screening inherently misses the fast growing and catches the slow growing; hence, screening causes overdiagnosis with little mortality benefit,” he explained.
“Overdiagnosis of small screen-detected tumors that would never become clinically evident results in overtreatment with drugs and needless radiation, which can cause heart disease and increase future deaths,” Dr. Keen added. “The trials have not shown any overall mortality benefit, nor is there any trial evidence to justify aggressive annual screening. Screening also increases overall mastectomies and lumpectomies because of overdiagnosis. The greatest benefit-to-harm ratio occurs for women in their 60s, which is what radiologists should be telling women.”
Dr. Autier, Dr. Destounis, and Dr. Keen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Lee is a spokesperson for the American College of Radiology.
Click Here for: Dr Dach’s Online Store for Pure Encapsulations Supplements
Web Site and Discussion Board Links:
Disclaimer click here: www.drdach.com/wst_page20.html
The reader is advised to discuss the comments on these pages with his/her personal physicians and to only act upon the advice of his/her personal physician. Also note that concerning an answer which appears as an electronically posted question, I am NOT creating a physician — patient relationship. Although identities will remain confidential as much as possible, as I can not control the media, I can not take responsibility for any breaches of confidentiality that may occur.
Link to this article:
Copyright (c) 2011 Jeffrey Dach MD All Rights Reserved. This article may be reproduced on the internet without permission, provided there is a link to this page and proper credit is given.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues of significance. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
- A-fib/Arrythmias (20)
- acne (21)
- allergies (78)
- alzheimers (309)
- Anemia (33)
- Anti aging (278)
- anti-biotics (78)
- arthritis (71)
- artificial sweetners (72)
- asthma (62)
- Athlete Nutrition (53)
- athlete training (23)
- Austism/ADD (162)
- blood pressure (167)
- blood thinners (38)
- brain health (218)
- cancer (1,228)
- candida/yeast (99)
- celiac/crohns/UC/IBS (153)
- cholesterol (273)
- chronic fatigue (90)
- cold/flu/immunity (192)
- crooked health care (683)
- depression (158)
- detox (102)
- diabetes (346)
- Digestion/acid reflux (144)
- eye health (41)
- Fats: the truth about oils (136)
- fibromyalgia (46)
- flouride (90)
- food (448)
- Gall Bladder (13)
- gluten (46)
- GMO (136)
- Government Corruption(9/11; Chemtrails, etc..) (263)
- Hair/Skin health (76)
- hearing loss (9)
- heart disease (466)
- Hepatitis (22)
- herpes (13)
- Kidneys (46)
- Liver (80)
- lung health (49)
- Lupus (22)
- Lymes Disease (24)
- mens health (89)
- migraine/headache (35)
- MS (56)
- Must read (147)
- Nuclear radiation (38)
- oral health (36)
- organic (21)
- osteoporosis (82)
- Pain relief (41)
- parkinson's (63)
- pesticides (50)
- pet health (14)
- pregnancy/fertility (213)
- rheumatoid arthritis (40)
- sleep (80)
- statins (132)
- stress (113)
- stroke (105)
- sunscreen (42)
- thyroid (135)
- toxins (114)
- Uncategorized (113)
- vaccines (437)
- vegetarian (8)
- vitamin D (161)
- water (45)
- weight loss (399)
- Women's Health (163)