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: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the relationship between mammography interval and breast cancer mortality among older women with breast cancer. The study population included 1,914 women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer at age 75 or later during their participation in the Women's health initiative, with an average follow-up of 4.4 years (3.1 SD). Cause of death was based on medical record review. Mammography interval was defined as the time between the last self-reported mammogram 7 or more months prior to diagnosis, and the date of diagnosis. Multivariable adjusted hazard ratios (HR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) for breast cancer mortality and all-cause mortality were computed from Cox proportional hazards analyses. Prior mammograms were reported by 73.0 % of women from 7 months to ≤2 year of diagnosis (referent group), 19.4 % (>2 to <5 years), and 7.5 % (≥5 years or no prior mammogram). Women with the longest versus shortest intervals had more poorly differentiated (28.5 % vs. 22.7 %), advanced stage (25.7 % vs. 22.9 %), and estrogen receptor negative tumors (20.9 % vs. 13.1 %). Compared to the referent group, women with intervals of >2 to <5 years or ≥5 years had an increased risk of breast cancer mortality (HR 1.62, 95 % CI 1.03-2.54) and (HR 2.80, 95 % CI 1.57-5.00), respectively, p trend = 0.0002. There was no significant relationship between mammography interval and other causes of death. These results suggest a continued role for screening mammography among women 75 years of age and older.
    Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 09/2014; 148(1). DOI:10.1007/s10549-014-3114-4 · 4.20 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Randomized controlled trials are considered the hallmark of evidence-based medicine. This conveys the idea that up-to-date evidence applied consistently in clinical practice, in combination with clinicians' individual expertise and patients own preference/expectations are enjoined to achieve the best possible outcome. Since its inception in 1990s, evidence-based medicine has evolved in conjunction with numerous changes in the healthcare environment. However, the benefits of evidence-based medicine have not materialized for spinal pain including surgical interventions. Consequently, the debate continues on the efficacy and medical necessity of multiple interventions provided in managing spinal pain. Friedly et al published a randomized controlled trial of epidural glucocorticoid injections for spinal stenosis in the July 2014 edition of the highly prestigious New England Journal of Medicine. This was accompanied by an editorial from Andersson. This manuscript provided significant sensationalism for the media and confusion for the spine community. This randomized trial of epidural glucocorticoid injections for spinal stenosis and accompanying editorial concluded that epidural injections of glucocorticoids plus lidocaine offered minimal or no short-term benefit as compared with epidural injections of lidocaine alone, with the editorial emphasizing proceeding directly to surgical intervention. In addition media statements by the authors also emphasized the idea that exercise or surgery might be better options for patients suffereing from narrowing of the spinal canal. The interventional pain management community believes that there are severe limitations to this study, manuscript, and accompanying editorial. The design, inclusion criteria, outcomes assessment, analysis of data and interpretation, and conclusions of this trial point to the fact that this highly sophisticated and much publicized randomized trial may not be appropriate and lead to misinformation. The design of the trial was inappropriate with failure to include existing randomized trials, with inclusion criteria that did not incorporate conservative management,or caudal epidural injections. Simultaneously, acute pain patients were included, multilevel stenosis and various other factors were not identified. The interventions included lumbar interlaminar and transforaminal epidural injections with highly variable volumes of medication being injected per patient. Outcomes assessment was not optimal with assessment of the patients at 3 and 6 weeks for a procedure which provides on average 3 weeks of relief and utilizing an instrument which is more appropriately utilized in acute and subacute low back pain. Analysis of the data was hampered by inadequate subgroup analysis leading to inappropriate interpretation. Based on the available data epidural local anesthetic with steroids was clearly superior at 3 weeks and potentially at 6 weeks. Further, both treatments were effective considering the baseline to 3 week and 6 week assessment, appropriate subgroup analysis seems to have yielded significant superiority for interlaminar epidural injections compared to transforaminal epidural injections with local anesthetic with or without steroids specifically with proportion of patients achieving greater than 50% improvement at 3 and 6 week levels. This critical assessment shows that this study suffers from a challenging design, was premised on the exclusion of available high-quality literature, and had inadequate duration of follow-up for an interventional technique with poor assessment criteria and reporting. Finally the analysis and interpretation of data has led to inaccurate and inappropriate conclusions which we do not believe is based on scientific evidence.
    Pain physician 07/2014; 17(4):E475-E487. · 4.77 Impact Factor


Available from