Flutterby™! : On mammograms

Next unread comment / Catchup all unread comments User Account Info | Logout | XML/Pilot/etc versions | Long version (with comments) | Weblog archives | Site Map | | Browse Topics

On mammograms

2014-02-12 15:37:48.848796+00 by Dan Lyke 1 comments

NY Times: Vast Study Casts Doubts on Value of Mammograms. The study is BMJ: Twenty five year follow-up for breast cancer incidence and mortality of the Canadian National Breast Screening Study: randomised screening trial:

... During the entire study period, 3250 women in the mammography arm and 3133 in the control arm had a diagnosis of breast cancer, and 500 and 505, respectively, died of breast cancer. Thus the cumulative mortality from breast cancer was similar between women in the mammography arm and in the control arm (hazard ratio 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.88 to 1.12). After 15 years of follow-up a residual excess of 106 cancers was observed in the mammography arm, attributable to over-diagnosis.'

So early detection might not influence mortality, and appears to cause unnecessary treatment.

[ related topics: Health Invention and Design ]

comments in ascending chronological order (reverse):

#Comment Re: made: 2014-02-17 01:44:23.780678+00 by: Dan Lyke

And Dr Jen Gunter: Does digital mammography really save lives or is it pink Kook Aid?.