- Detroit’s Heidelberg art project hit by 8 fires in 8 months
- Pa. police pull people over for random DNA tests for feds
- NASA pushing hard to get back into space game
- Harvard student to face federal charges for bomb hoax
- Ronnie Biggs of ‘Great Train Robbery’ fame dies, 84
- Pope Francis wins another ‘Person of the Year’ — from gay rights magazine
- Rep. Steve Stockman: Give my campaign $10, and you’ll get an Obama barf bag
- Putin: Russia to buy $15 billion in Ukraine bonds
- Expert: Obamacare ‘death spiral’ fears exaggerated
- Alabama firefighters dig for survivors of apartment blast
New mammogram study stirs debate for women in 40s
A new study from Sweden is stirring fresh debate over whether women in their 40s should get mammograms. It suggests that the breast cancer screening test can lower the risk of dying of the disease by 26 percent or more in this age group.
That’s a bigger benefit than was found by earlier studies, which a year ago led an influential panel of U.S. science advisers to recommend against routine screening before age 50. The panel said the benefits were so small and potential problems from screening so great that the decision should be left to each woman and her doctor.
That advice set off cries of outrage from many cancer screening advocates and even from members of Congress. But since then, there have been other studies supporting the task force’s stance. And just last week, another study in Norway found that the benefit of mammograms even for women 50 and older is less than has been believed.
The new study has major limitations, and cannot account for possibly big differences in the groups of women it compares. Nor does it consider the harm _ such as unnecessary stress, unwarranted biopsies and overtreatment _ of screening women in their 40s. Breast cancer is less common in that age group, so mammograms can raise many false alarms.
However, the new Swedish study appears to be the largest of this age group _ about 1 million women. And “it captures the real-world experience” they have from regular mammograms, said Dr. Jennifer Obel, a spokeswoman for the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
The Swedish researchers estimate that 1,252 women in their 40s would have to be offered screening every other year for 10 years to save one life.
Results of the new study were reported in a teleconference on Wednesday and will be presented at a cancer conference in Washington later this week. They also were published online by the journal Cancer.
Advocates of mammograms for younger women praised the study.
“It’s just one piece of evidence supporting the fact that screening women in their 40s does save lives,” said the American Cancer Society’s chief medical officer, Dr. Otis Brawley. “We believe that women in their 40s should be screened, but we also believe that women should be informed of the limitations of mammography.”
About 5,100 of the roughly 40,000 breast cancer deaths each year in the U.S. are in women under age 50, but many women who die at older ages were diagnosed at younger ages, according to the cancer society.
“If we screened all 22 million American women who are aged 40 to 49 this year, this study suggests it would translate to 2,000 to 2,200 lives saved,” Brawley said.
Dr. Daniel Kopans, a radiology professor at Harvard Medical School and an American College of Radiology spokesman, said the study “should end any debate and end the use of age 50 as a threshold for screening.”
But others were unconvinced and stood by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. That panel last fall recommended against routine screening for women in their 40s.
“Everybody is confused, but in my opinion, the strength of evidence is robust” for following the panel’s advice, said Dr. Ranit Mishori, a family medicine specialist at Georgetown University.
Dr. Jeanne Mandelblatt, a Georgetown doctor who headed six research teams for the government panel, said the new study “does not balance the benefits against the harms,” as the panel sought to do.
By John R. Bolton
The president fiddles at his domestic altar while the world burns
- U.S. Army mulls wiping out memory of Robert E. Lee, 'Stonewall' Jackson
- PRUDEN: The scam that will not die
- Gov't wasted $30 billion on 'pillownauts,' crystal goblets -- buying human urine!
- Top Democrats reject court ruling over NSA spying on Americans
- BOLTON: Nero in the White House
- White House is obstructing probe on Navy Yard shooter, NSA leaker, Darrell Issa says
- We told you so: Conservatives foresaw polygamy ruling
- Colorado revolt: 55 of 62 sheriffs refuse to enforce new gun laws
- Senators in rush to pass budget vow to undo cut to military retirement pay
- Embassy Row: India strikes back over diplomat's arrest
Independent voices from the The Washington Times Communities
Politics, economics, and business from a real world perspective.
Uncensored exploration of issues concerning current events, civil liberties, American political advocacy, and the political and social issues facing military veterans.
NFL junkie Eric Golub reports on his favorite obsession. There is no football offseason. Every February he pretends to care about other sports while sobbing uncontrollably each Sunday until September.
Television commentary, reviews, news and nonstop DVR catch-up by Lisa King Dolloff and friends.
Top 10 handguns in the U.S.
Extraordinary day at Redskins Park
White House pets gone wild!
Let it snow