Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Breast Cancer / October 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

BBC:  Breast screening 'may harm some'

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Ilena Rose - 18 Oct 2006 15:57 GMT
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6061652.stm


Breast screening 'may harm some'
Concerns have been raised that breast cancer screening might lead to
some women undergoing unnecessary treatment.
Researchers looked at international studies on half a million women.

They found that for every 2,000 women screened over a decade, one will
have her life prolonged, but 10 will have to undergo unnecessary
treatment.

UK experts said women over 50 should go for their breast checks, but a
screening pioneer raised doubts about the programme's future.

The report, published in the Cochrane Library, involved a review of
breast cancer research papers from around the world.

Women invited to screening should be fully informed of both benefits
and harm
Dr Peter Gotzsche, researcher  

The scientists found mammograms did reduce the number of women dying
from the disease.

But they also discovered it was diagnosing woman with breast cancer
who would have survived without treatment, meaning they were
undergoing unnecessary chemotherapy, radiotherapy or mastectomies.

About a fifth of cancers picked up by screening are in the milk ducts
of the breast.

Some of these cancers will progress while others will not - but there
is no way of predicting what will happen.

This means women and doctors have to decide whether or not to risk
doing nothing, or go ahead with treatment which might be unnecessary.

They also revealed a further 200 women out of every 2,000 experienced
distress and anxiety because of false positives - a result that
indicated a cancer was present but was later found to be wrong.

Lead researcher Dr Peter Gotzsche, of the Nordic Cochrane Centre,
said: "Women invited to screening should be fully informed of both
benefits and harm.

"When screening advocates and their organisations produce information
materials, they generally emphasise the benefits and omit information
on the major harms. This needs to be corrected to ensure that women
can give genuinely informed consent before joining a screening
programme."

In 2001, the same authors concluded there was no convincing evidence
that screening programmes reduce mortality from the disease.

NICE referral?

Michael Baum, professor of surgery at University College London who
set up one of England's first screening programme in 1987, told the
Daily Telegraph: "This latest evidence shifts the balance even further
towards harm and away from benefits.

The benefits of breast screening far outweigh the risks
Julietta Patnick, director of the NHS Cancer Screening Programmes  

"If this report stands up, the NHS screening programme should be
referred to the National Institute for health and Clinical Excellence
to decide whether it should be closed down."

But a spokesman for the Department of Health said that, as mammography
was an accepted, evidence-based technology, it would not be
appropriate to refer the screening programme to NICE."

And Professor John Toy, medical director of Cancer Research UK, said:
"Researchers in the field all agree that breast screening saves lives
although they differ in their views about the balance of the pros and
cons.

"Benefits need to be balanced against any disadvantages, as is the
case with all medical treatments.

"Certainly women invited for screening should be made aware of both
potential benefits and downsides - such as possible initial
mis-diagnosis.

"But overall we continue to encourage UK women to participate in the
NHS Breast Screening Programme."

Jeremy Hughes, chief executive of Breakthrough Breast Cancer said:
"When early changes are picked up by screening it is not currently
possible to predict whether or not they will progress and so treatment
is usually offered to prevent breast cancer from developing.

"It's important women are given clear information about their
treatment options. Early detection saves lives. Women over 50 should
not be discouraged from taking up their screening appointments."

And Julietta Patnick director of the NHS Cancer Screening Programmes
said: "The programme saves 1,400 lives every year. Women who are
screened are also less likely to have a mastectomy than those who are
not screened.

"For lives to be saved breast screening must detect cancers in the
early stages. The benefits of breast screening far outweigh the risks
and I would strongly encourage all women to make an informed choice to
attend for screening when invited."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/health/6061652.stm

Published: 2006/10/18 09:52:18 GMT

© BBC MMVI
Mary Fisher - 18 Oct 2006 16:24 GMT
I was waiting for someone to bring this up.

It's the BBC's take on the story - i.e. journalistic hyperbole.

I heard the man himself being interviewed, I didn't agree with what he said,
nor did an expert, who challenged his figures.

It's one opinion, one extreme end of a complicated spectrum.

Mary
x{yz}enophil44@hotmail.com - 18 Oct 2006 17:12 GMT
>"Ilena Rose" <BIA@mundo.com> wrote in message

>news:03gcj2t5ptafuecfl26h2j2ghc1fkb5p9s@4ax.com...
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>It's one opinion, one extreme end of a complicated spectrum.

And what's the altermative?  Ignore us until we're past saving?
Mary Fisher - 18 Oct 2006 17:13 GMT
>>"Ilena Rose" <BIA@mundo.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>>
> And what's the altermative?  Ignore us until we're past saving?

That could be construed from what he said :-)

Mary
Tim Jackson - 18 Oct 2006 20:51 GMT
>>>"Ilena Rose" <BIA@mundo.com> wrote in message
>>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> Mary

Whether the collateral damage of unnecessary surgery is outweighed by
the benefit of the lives prolonged depends on how much damage and how
much prolongation.  The figures cited, on the face of it, don't seem too
bad a price to pay, although it is a difficult thing to balance.

Of course we would like to improve upon the diagnoses and avoid invasive
surgery wherever possible.

Incidentally..
>> About a fifth of cancers picked up by screening are in the milk
>> ducts of the breast.

That doesn't sound right to me, I think it should be that a fifth are
DCIS, that is to say they are entirely contained within the milk duct,
and of which only a fraction ever develop into cancer if left untreated.
 *Invasive* ductal carcinoma I think accounts for a lot more than 20%.

Tim Jackson
Mary Fisher - 18 Oct 2006 21:08 GMT
> Whether the collateral damage of unnecessary surgery is outweighed by the
> benefit of the lives prolonged depends on how much damage and how much
> prolongation.  The figures cited, on the face of it, don't seem too bad a
> price to pay, although it is a difficult thing to balance.

That's true.

But one set of figures cited is that "out of 2,000 women screened in ten
years ... "

Now I don't understand what's meant by 2,000 in ten years. Far, far more
than that are screen. Is the researcher picking out 2,000 for the sake of
his one life saved? Has anyone read the actual research report?

> Of course we would like to improve upon the diagnoses and avoid invasive
> surgery wherever possible.

Of course.

As with all reports it's difficult to know what is fact. It's ertainly not
worth worrying about :-)

Mary
Tim Jackson - 19 Oct 2006 10:23 GMT
> But one set of figures cited is that "out of 2,000 women screened in ten
> years ... "
>
> Now I don't understand what's meant by 2,000 in ten years. Far, far more
> than that are screen. Is the researcher picking out 2,000 for the sake of
> his one life saved? Has anyone read the actual research report?

It said "for every 2000" etc., i.e. that every ten years 0.05% of the
women being screened would have a cancer successfully treated.   There
is no doubt that the screening program is double edged and that it is
right to consider the balance of harm versus benefit.

Here is a link to a more detailed summary of the original paper.
www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab001877.html

Part of the problem is the concept of lives 'saved', as if we were
immortal. The article referred (correctly in my view) to lives
'prolonged'.  One can only make any reasonable judgement on these issues
by considering how much extra quality life is being granted to the
beneficiaries, and weighing that against how much loss of quality is
suffered by those harmed, and for how long.  Quality of life is of
course a subjective matter, but a consensus view can be found.

It is certainly not obvious that 10 unnecessary lumpectomies are worse
than one person dying of cancer, (obviously the individuals involved
will have differing views) but it is something we should be consider.

I don't think the research under discussion really says much more than
that, although some of the pundits have made unhelpful comments.  The
comment that the researchers had previously concluded that screening did
not significantly reduce mortality is misleading.   If a woman lives 20
years longer as a result of therapy, but then dies of cancer anyway,
then the therapy has not reduced *mortality* one iota, but has provided
the benefit of an extra 20 years of life to someone.  What it says if
anything is that people who get breast cancer often die of breast
cancer, but not necessarily at the same time.

Tim
Mary Fisher - 19 Oct 2006 12:13 GMT
> Here is a link to a more detailed summary of the original paper.
> www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab001877.html

Thanks, I'll read it later.

> Part of the problem is the concept of lives 'saved', as if we were
> immortal.

Indeed - we hear it far too often - in every sphere of life.

> The article referred (correctly in my view) to lives 'prolonged'.

But the reports I heard (journalistic interpretations) said 'saved'.

> One can only make any reasonable judgement on these issues by considering
> how much extra quality life is being granted to the beneficiaries, and
> weighing that against how much loss of quality is suffered by those
> harmed, and for how long.  Quality of life is of course a subjective
> matter, but a consensus view can be found.

Hmm. I'm a bit suspicious of the consensus route ...

> It is certainly not obvious that 10 unnecessary lumpectomies are worse
> than one person dying of cancer, (obviously the individuals involved will
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> is that people who get breast cancer often die of breast cancer, but not
> necessarily at the same time.

The chap leading (or part of) the research talked about women dying from
other causes than bc, if they weren't treated, as part of the figures.

It's really far too complicated to have brief snatches of discussion or
edited headlines.

Thanks, Tim,

Mary

> Tim
George Conklin - 18 Oct 2006 22:18 GMT
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6061652.stm
>
[quoted text clipped - 108 lines]
>
> © BBC MMVI

   I guess this is going to upset a lot of people.
Mary Fisher - 19 Oct 2006 12:14 GMT
>    I guess this is going to upset a lot of people.

Only if they believe everything they read and hear :-)

Mary
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.