The new breast cancer screening guidelines announced November 16th by the U.S Preventive Services Task Force have sparked widespread anger and confusion. The debate centers on the relative risks and benefits of various methods of trying to pick up breast cancer at an early stage. All current techniques, including mammography, MRI, ultrasound, and breast exam, can reveal abnormalities that end up being benign. These so-called “false positives” often lead to expensive, anxiety-producing, and invasive testing such as biopsy and fine-needle aspiration. The big question is: What screening tests are “worth it” and how do we define “worth it?” Read more »
I was having an interesting Twitter chat with online friends (Liz Cohen @elizcohencnn, Dr. Chuk Onyeije @chukwumaonyeije; Dr. David Gorski @gorskon; Dr. Marya Zilberberg @murzee; Sherry Reynolds @cascadia; and @speakhealth) about the mammogram debate. They asked me “where I drew the line” on paying for expensive screening tests that may save lives but require unnecessary surgery for countless others. My opinion takes into account human nature and political savvy rather than pure science and statistics on this one.
To me, the bottom line is that the mammogram is a sloppy screening test. It’s expensive, there are lots of false positives and unnecessary surgeries, yet it saves occasional lives (which is dramatic and meaningful). We have to appreciate that women have come to accept the risks/benefits of this test, and have been told for a long time that they should begin screening at age 40.
It’s not emotionally or politically possible to reverse course on this recommendation until a better choice is available. You can trade the mammogram for a better test, but you can’t trade it for doing nothing. The amount of drama associated with the perception of having something potentially life-saving taken away is just not worth the cost savings. It may be a reasonable value judgment based on the data, but it’s not politically feasible so we should mentally take it off the table. Read more »
Dr. Avrum Bluming is a medical oncologist and clinical professor of medicine at the University of Southern California. He is also a dear friend, scientist, and careful analyzer of data. I asked him to help me understand the current mammogram guidelines debate, and what women (now faced with conflicting recommendations) should do about breast cancer screening. Please listen to his fascinating discussion captured here:
What I learned is that the guidelines must be tailored to each woman’s unique situation. The variables that must be considered are incredibly complex, as breast cancer risk factors include everything from when and if one has given birth, to a history of smoking, drinking, overweight, breast cancer in the family and even the age of your parents when you were born. Beyond risk factors, new research suggests that some breast cancers spontaneously resolve without treatment, but our technology is not advanced enough to distinguish those from others that will go on to become life-threatening tumors – so we treat all cancers the same. Read more »
It’s no secret that doctors are disappointed with the way that the U.S. healthcare system is evolving. Most feel helpless about improving their work conditions or solving technical problems in patient care. Fortunately one young medical student was undeterred by the mountain of disappointment carried by his senior clinician mentors…
I am proud to be a part of the American Resident Project an initiative that promotes the writing of medical students residents and new physicians as they explore ideas for transforming American health care delivery. I recently had the opportunity to interview three of the writing fellows about how to…
I m often asked to do book reviews on my blog and I rarely agree to them. This is because it takes me a long time to read a book and then if I don t enjoy it I figure the author would rather me remain silent than publish my…
When I was in medical school I read Samuel Shem s House Of God as a right of passage. At the time I found it to be a cynical yet eerily accurate portrayal of the underbelly of academic medicine. I gained comfort from its gallows humor and it made me…
I am hesitant to review diet books because they are so often a tangled mess of fact and fiction. Teasing out their truth from falsehood is about as exhausting as delousing a long-haired elementary school student. However after being approached by the authors’ PR agency with the promise of a…
