At a recent community education program, Stanford experts on women’s
cancer disagreed with controversial new
federal guidelines on breast cancer screening. The new guidelines,
released in November by the U.S.
Preventive Services Task Force, would delay a woman’s first
mammogram by 10 years, reduce future screenings from annual to every
other year, and end them after age 74.
“It’s critical that we don’t have limits on our resources while this
gets sorted out.”
Instead, presenters for the program, “Controversies in Screening for
Women’s Cancer,” said they’ll continue to support older breast-cancer
screening guidelines,
from the American Cancer Society in 2003, which call for annual
mammograms starting at age 40.
The new guidelines apply only to women at average risk for breast
cancer, not high-risk women.
Debra
Ikeda, MD, director of Stanford University Breast Imaging, said she
disagreed with the Task Force’s conclusion that the number of lives
saved by annual mammography screening for women in their 40s was
outweighed by the risks of screening for that age group. “Women need to
know that [with routine mammograms] there may be false positives and a
need for biopsies,” she said. “But women should make that choice for
themselves, with a doctor’s help.”
Ikeda, a professor of diagnostic radiology, is concerned that the new
guidelines will lead to some women missing out on a cancer being
detected early, when it’s more treatable. “With that longer interval
between mammograms,” she said, “we’ll start seeing more higher-stage
cancers.”
While possible over diagnosis of breast cancer is also a risk of routine
mammograms, Ikeda said, “the problem I have is, how do I know which
cancer is going to kill a woman and which one won’t? I don’t want to
take that chance.”
The real problem, she said, is there is no reliable test to distinguish
deadly breast cancers from those that won’t cause harm. Also, she said
the actual benefit of annual mammograms for women in their 40s is likely
greater than the USPSTF determined, since its data couldn’t have fully
reflected recent advances in breast imaging technology. .
Professional societies, including the American
Cancer Society and the American
College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, also oppose the new
breast-cancer screening guidelines and back the previous guidance.
Professor of medicine-oncology Robert
W. Carlson, MD, also a presenter at the program, said he, too,
supports the older guidelines. He said he is particularly concerned that
the new guidelines could lead insurers to limit coverage of breast
cancer screening.
Still, Carlson said the Task Force’s new breast cancer guidelines
represent a difference in opinion and values. From a policy perspective,
he said, screening every two years starting at age 50 could be
considered reasonable given the need to use limited resources for the
greatest benefit. Annual screening starting at age 40 would require
approximately 50,000 women to be screened, and millions of dollars
spent, for every life saved, he pointed out.
The new guidelines also recommend against teaching women to perform
self-exams, and they question the value of clinical breast exams.
Carlson said that discouraging breast self-exams may seem
counter-intuitive because many women discover their breast cancer this
way. But results from large, randomized controlled trials, including a study
of 250,000 textile workers in Shanghai, have shown that doing
self-exams does not increase cancer detection rates and does not
decrease mortality rates. Instead, studies found that the women in the
breast self-exam group had significantly more biopsies than the control
group, but the number of cancers found and the number of breast cancer
deaths was similar in both groups.
Based on this evidence, Carlson said he no longer advises women to do
breast self-exams, though he won’t discourage the practice if a woman
wants to do it.
The USPSTF’s report found insufficient evidence to support breast exams
performed at a doctor’s office. Carlson said he favors continuing the
practice until further data is available.
The program presenters predicted that the guidelines will likely be
revisited as further evidence is collected. “It’s critical that we study
this more and we study it carefully,” said program moderator Jonathan
Berek, MD, director of the Women’s Cancer Program at Stanford, and
professor and chair of obstetrics and gynecology. Meanwhile, he said,
“It’s critical that we don’t have limits on our resources while this
gets sorted out.”