United States Preventive Services Task Force Screening Mammography Recommendations: Science Ignored

Department of Radiology, University of Colorado-Denver, School of Medicine, C278, 12700 E 19th Ave., Aurora, CO 80045, USA.
American Journal of Roentgenology (Impact Factor: 2.74). 02/2011; 196(2):W112-6. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.10.5609
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to examine the scientific evidence considered by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in recommending against screening mammography in women 40-49 years old and against annual screening mammography in women 50 and older. We use evidence made available to the USPSTF to estimate the benefits and "harms" of screening mammography in women 40 years old and older. We use Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network modeling to compare lives saved by different screening scenarios and the summary of evidence prepared for the USPSTF to estimate the frequency of harms of screening mammography by age. CONCLUSION: Averaged over the six Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network models of benefit, screening mammography shows greatest benefit--a 39.6% mortality reduction--from annual screening of women 40-84 years old. This screening regimen saves 71% more lives than the USPSTF-recommended regimen of biennial screening of women 50-74 years old, which had a 23.2% mortality reduction. For U.S. women currently 30-39 years old, annual screening mammography from ages 40-84 years would save 99,829 more lives than USPSTF recommendations if all women comply, and 64,889 more lives with the current 65% compliance rate. The potential harms of a screening examination in women 40-49 years old, on average, consist of the risk of a recall for diagnostic workup every 12 years, a negative biopsy every 149 years, a missed breast cancer every 1,000 years, and a fatal radiation-induced breast cancer every 76,000-97,000 years. Evidence made available to the USPSTF strongly supports the mortality benefit of annual screening mammography beginning at age 40 years, whereas potential harms of screening with this regimen are minor.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Breast cancer is the most common cancer among females, worldwide, accounting for 22.9% of all cancers (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer) in women. Mammography is a sensitive (77-95%) and specific (94-97%) screening method for breast cancer. Previously, females between the 40-50 years old were recommended to have mammograms every one to two years. However, based on current evidence, in 2009, USPSTF recommended that the decision to start regular, biennial screening mammography for females younger than 50 years should be an individual decision and take patient context into account, including patient values regarding specific benefits and harms. This decision was based on findings regarding radiation exposure, false-positive and false-negative rates, over-diagnosis, and pain and psychological responses. The goal of this paper is to focus on evidence for updating the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation against routine mammography for females between 40-49 years of age.
    Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention: APJCP 03/2013; 14(3):2137-9. DOI:10.7314/APJCP.2013.14.3.2137 · 2.51 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction: Over the past decade the United States (US) has seen a decrease in advanced cancer diagnoses. There has also been an increase in the number of cancer survivors returning to work. Cancer screening behaviors among survivors may play an important role in their return-to-work process. Adherence to a post-treatment cancer screening protocol increases early detection of secondary tumors and reduces potentially limiting side-effects. We compared screening trends among all cancer survivors, working survivors, and the general population over the last decade. Materials and Methods: Trends in adherence to recommended screening were analyzed by site-specific cancer. We used the Healthy People goals as a measure of desired adherence. We selected participants 18+ years from 1997 to 2010 National Health Interview Survey for years where detailed cancer screening information was available. Using the recommendations of the American Cancer Society as a guide, we assessed adherence to cancer screening across the decade. There were 174,393 participants. Analyses included 7,528 working cancer survivors representing 3.8 million US workers, and 119,374 adults representing more than 100 million working Americans with no cancer history. Results: The US population met the Healthy People 2010 goal for colorectal screening, but declined in all other recommended cancer screening. Cancer survivors met and maintained the HP2010 goal for all, except cervical cancer screening. Survivors had higher screening rates than the general population. Among survivors, white-collar and service occupations had higher screening rates than blue-collar survivors. Conclusion: Cancer survivors report higher screening rates than the general population. Nevertheless, national screening rates are lower than desired, and disparities exist by cancer history and occupation. Understanding existing disparities, and the impact of cancer screening on survivors is crucial as the number of working survivors increases.
    Frontiers in Oncology 12/2012; 2:190. DOI:10.3389/fonc.2012.00190
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Guideline development seems to have lost some of its grounding as a medical science. At their best, guidelines should be a constructive response to assist practicing physicians in applying the exponentially expanding body of medical knowledge. In fact, guideline development seems to be evolving into a cottage industry with multiple, frequently discordant guidance on the same subject. Evidence Based Medicine does not always provide for conclusive opinions. With competing interests of payers, practitioners, health policy makers, and third parties benefiting from development of the guidelines as cost saving measures, guideline preparation has been described as based on pre-possession, vagary, rationalization, or congeniality of conclusion. Beyond legitimate differences in opinions regarding the evidence that could yield different guidelines there are potentials for conflicts of interest and various other issues play a major role in guideline development. As is always the case, conflicts of interest in guideline preparation must be evaluated and considered. Following the development of American Pain Society (APS) guidelines there has been an uproar in interventional pain management communities on various issues related to not only the evidence synthesis, but conflicts of interest. A recent manuscript published by Chou et al, in addition to previous publications, appears to have limited clinician involvement in the development of APS guidelines, and demonstrates some of these challenges clearly. This manuscript illustrates the deficiencies of Chou et al's criticisms, and demonstrates their significant conflicts of interest, and use a lack of appropriate evaluations in interventional pain management as a straw man to support their argument. Further, this review will attempt to demonstrate that excessive focus on this straw man has inhibited critique of what we believe to be flaws in the approach.
    Pain physician 15(1):E1-E26. · 4.77 Impact Factor


Available from