Taking A Stand Against the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force’s “New Breast Cancer Guidelines”
By Grace Bender | November 20th, 2009
As a member of the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Advocacy Alliance Board and a breast cancer survivor, I welcome readers of Disruptive Women in Health Care to read the statement below that was released by Komen as a result of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force “new breast cancer guidelines.” In addition, please visit the Komen website: www.komenadvocacy.org and take a stand and action by signing the petition and help ensure that all women have access to this lifesaving screening.
Susan G. Komen for the Cure® Recommends No Impediments to Breast Cancer Screening
Until Science Improves, Current Screening Recommendations Should Remain, World’s Leading Breast Cancer Organization Reports
Nov. 16, 2009 – Susan G. Komen for the Cure®, the world’s leading breast cancer advocacy organization, has carefully reviewed the data and new recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) concerning mammography screening. Komen for the Cure issued the following statement today from Eric P. Winer, M.D., chief scientific advisor and chair of Komen’s Scientific Advisory Board.
“Susan G. Komen for the Cure wants to eliminate any impediments to regular mammography screening for women age 40 and older. While there is no question that mammograms save lives for women over 50 and women 40–49, there is enough uncertainty about the age at which mammography should begin and the frequency of screening that we would not want to see a change in policy for screening mammography at this time. Komen’s current screening guidelines can be found at www.komen.org and would not be changed without serious consideration.
Our real focus, however, should be on the fact that one-third of the women who qualify for screening under today’s guidelines are not being screened due to lack of access, education or awareness. That issue needsfocus and attention: if we can make progress with screening in vulnerable populations, we could makemore progress in the fight against breast cancer.
Mammography is not perfect, but is still our best tool for early detection and successful treatment of this disease. New screening approaches and more individualized recommendations for breast cancer screening are urgently needed. Susan G. Komen for the Cure is currently funding research initiatives designed to improve screening, and we believe that it is imperative that this research move forward rapidly. Komen also provides funding for more than 1,900 education, awareness and screening programs.
We encourage women to be aware of their breast health, understand their risks, and continue to follow existing recommendations for routine screenings including mammography beginning at age 40.”
November 22nd, 2009 at 11:20 am
As a physician who has reviewed previous irresponsible recommendations in other fields (like cardiology) from the USPSTF, I can absolutely prove they are as intellectually dishonest an organization as it gets. They start out with an agenda (generally to ration healthcare) and then pretend they review the literature c…omprehensively. Instead, they only select those articles that support their position before they do the research. In a recent guideline article on the use of cardiac imaging, they ignored the results of highly respected huge studies and their conclusions were completely against the grain of the experts from the American Heart Assn and American College of Cardiology. These are loser family docs who never attend the specialty meetings (in women’s imaging, breast cancer task forces, etc) and almost always get it wrong.
November 22nd, 2009 at 11:23 am
USPSTF is getting a bad rap. They’re not a bunch of losers, just a bunch of experts on how to interpret the evidence. Much of the evidence presented at prof society meetings is of poor quality, and USPSTF discounts it. I wish some women would speak up who have had painful & disfiguring breast biopsies for the many false positives, not to mention the fact that such biopsies make future mammograms more difficult to interpret. (And, radiation dose isn’t even on the table here, though the cumulative lifetime dose of radiation will, over all those women, cause a few cancers themselves.)
November 22nd, 2009 at 11:25 am
I happen to agree with Judith Wagner about the fact that mammography is associated with radiation and often leads to false positives. In my opinion, women at younger ages (with denser breasts) should consider a multimodal approach to breast cancer detection using techniques like the sentinel breast scan (www.infraredsciences.com) to determine whether they can get away with very infrequent mammograms.
Although there are indeed studies of poor quality, the USPTF outrageously declared in a statement on coronary calcium imaging that only one study was of sufficient quality and discounted extremely well respected NIH studies. In a letter from true expert cardiologists in the field (not these amateur family docs on USPSTF), there was a call for them to actually include experts in the fields they comment upon
January 6th, 2010 at 6:04 pm
I am not familiar with the level of expertise and efficiency of the USPSTF, am not willing to call them losers before thoroughly investigating the credentials of their researchers. However, as medical professionals, we need to work together on solutions and refrain from polarizing each other on the issues and name calling.
Newer techniques and updated technology need to be developed to eliminate false positives. As a women’s advocate and doctoral level researcher, I do not recommend adopting a policy that will cause women to eliminate screenings. Sometimes lower income or less educated women may misinterpret the findings and receive no breast care. Many uninformed women do not perform monthly self exams, as is suggested.
On a lighter note, I am astonished by many of the presentations that are given at medical symposiums. I speak to audiences several times each week, and there is an art to public speaking. Some of the most brilliant medical specialists have not mastered public speaking. I agree that we need to improve the format of our conventions, such as hiring professional speech writers and publicists to assist with proper presentation of the scientific data. Being a medical scientist does not make you an effective presenter. Some speakers rival Ambien for putting audiences to sleep.