The Editor-in-Chief of Cancer
Investigation and one of the country's most respected medical policy
professors has written a new commentary which criticizes proposed changes to
breast cancer screening. The federally-funded US Preventive Services Task
Force (USPSTF) has recommended an about-turn in breast cancer screening,
which includes recommending against routine screening in the 40-49 year old
range, screening only every other year in older women and explicitly
recommending against teaching women breast self-examination (BSE).
"In the current healthcare reform debate in the United States, few issues
have generated more opinions and greater confusion than the value of cancer
screening," says Dr Gary H Lyman, Editor-in-Chief of Cancer Investigation and
Professor of Medicine and Director of Comparative Effectiveness and Outcomes
Research at Duke University and Senior Fellow at the Duke Center for Clinical
Health Policy Research.
"When a government-commissioned panel makes major changes in medical
recommendations that have been in place for many years and are still held by
most other professional organizations without any substantial change in the
available evidence, it is essential that they be aware of the enormous
adverse impact that these changes may have on patients, their physicians and
on the broader issues at stake in healthcare reform."
The new USPSTF guidelines fly in the face of those from the American
College of Physicians, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the
American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the
American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology and the Canadian Task Force on
Preventative Health Care and, until recently, their own organization.
Routine screening also saves thousands of lives and experts say that even
a small increase in the occurrence of more advanced disease resulting from
less frequent screening may have a long term adverse impact not only on
women's lives, but also on overall healthcare costs. In addition, modeling
studies show that maximum life years for patients are achieved by initiating
screening at age 40 years.
"There is an immediate and compelling need for major healthcare reform in
the USA and we can no longer afford to stand still and waste limited
resources for ineffective interventions while millions of Americans go
without access to proven effective screening and treatment," concedes Dr
Lyman. "However, available, effective and safe measures such as breast cancer
screening should not become the focus of this debate.
Efforts to improve the survival and quality of life for women with breast
cancer require the rational application of any and all proven effective
strategies including screening, mammograms and BSEs. While Lyman agrees that
more research is needed, he warns that the suggested changes in screening are
likely to lead to greater confusion and a reduction of breast screening
efforts, which may cost patient lives.
In addition, Dr Lyman points out two real and opposing dangers that may
emerge from the controversy around the new USPSTF recommendations for breast
cancer screening.
"First, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services or private insurers
could act on the suggestions of the federally-funded USPSTF and reverse their
policy of reimbursement for breast cancer screening, adding further to the
barriers women already face to appropriate breast cancer screening.
"Secondly, and perhaps of even greater concern, is the potential for the
confusion and anger surrounding the new recommendations being labeled by
opponents of healthcare reform as an example of rationing and what will
happen when the government takes over healthcare in the US.
"We cannot allow this debate over breast cancer screening to strengthen
opposition to the best opportunity to date for meaningful and long overdue
healthcare reform that will provide access to important healthcare advances
to all Americans," says Dr Lyman.