Showing posts with label Mammography. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mammography. Show all posts

Friday, January 25, 2013

Breast cancer screening saves lives: study

Posted: 30 October 2012

Breast cancer x-ray (posed picture)
PARIS: The benefits of preemptive breast cancer screening outweigh the risks, a study said Tuesday, insisting the practice saves thousands of lives.

The new research adds to the debate about the dangers of overdiagnosis, which sees some women undergo invasive treatment for cancers that would never have made them ill or even been diagnosed were it not for the scans.

"Breast screening extends lives," concluded a panel of researchers in The Lancet medical journal.

The team had analysed data from other trials conducted over many years in Britain, where women aged 50 to 70 are invited for a screening mammogram every three years.

The data, it said, pointed to a 20 per cent reduction in mortality -- or one death prevented for every 180 women screened.

This meant that the UK screening programmes "probably prevent about 1,300 breast cancer deaths every year," said the report.

But there is a cost.

Nearly 20 per cent of breast cancer diagnosed by screening would never have caused any problems, said the study.

The panel, set up to advise British policymakers, estimated that among every 10,000 women invited to screening from the age of 50 in the Britain, 681 cancers would be discovered, of which 129 would be overdiagnoses, and 43 deaths prevented.

The report showed that "the UK breast-screening programme extends lives and that, overall, the benefits outweigh the harms," The Lancet wrote in an editorial.

"Women need to have full and complete access to this latest evidence in order to make an informed choice about breast cancer screening."

The team conceded there were limitations to its work, including that all the data scrutinised was more than 20 years old.

Cancer experts have been at loggerheads for years about whether the benefits of screening outweigh the harm of overdiagnosis.

All cancer, once picked up in the screening process, is treated, often with surgery as well as radio- and chemotherapy, as it is impossible to tell which growths would have remained undetected for the remainder of a woman's life.

In August, medical experts Steven Woloshin and Lisa Schwartz wrote in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) that screening only narrowly decreased risks that a 50-year-old woman would die from breast cancer within 10 years -- from 0.53 per cent to 0.46 per cent.

Up to half of women screened annually over 10 years experienced at least one false alarm that required a biopsy, they said.

And in 2010, a report in the New England Journal of Medicine said mammograms have only a "modest" impact on reducing breast cancer deaths.

The latest panel had been created by the national cancer director for England, Mike Richards and Cancer Research UK chief executive officer Harpal Kumar.

Its work, said The Lancet, "should begin to lay the benefits versus harm controversy to rest".

- AFP/ck


-----
Taken from ChannelNewsAsia.com; source article is below:
Breast cancer screening saves lives: study

Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, November 24, 2011

False positives in mammograms a big concern

Posted: 18 October 2011

Breast cancer screening (posed picture)
WASHINGTON: After getting annual mammograms for 10 years, most women in the United States have had at least one false positive and seven to nine percent have been asked to get a biopsy, a US study released Monday found.

"We conducted this study to help women know what to expect when they get regular screening mammograms over the course of many years," explained Rebecca Hubbard, a Group Health Research Institute researcher in Seattle and an author of the research appearing in the October 17 edition of "Annals of Internal Medicine."

"We hope that if women know what to expect with screening, they'll feel less anxiety if -- or when -- they are called back for more testing. In the vast majority of cases, this does not mean they have cancer," Hubbard added.

Having a mammogram every two years would likely reduce the incidence of false positives but also could delay a cancer diagnosis, the researchers found.

Still, for those diagnosed with a cancerous tumor, the authors of the study did not find that women getting an exam every two years had a greater risk of advanced cancer than those getting annual mammograms.

The study looked at some 170,000 women from 40-59 across the United States and some 4,500 who were treated for metastisized breast cancer.

- AFP/cc



Taken from ChannelNewsAsia.com; source article is below:
False positives in mammograms a big concern

Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Annual mammography produces many false positives, study finds

Mammography in process: Shown is a drawing of ...Image via Wikipedia
October 17, 2011

By Shari Roan, Los Angeles Times / For the Booster Shots blog


Having a mammogram each year after age 40 is controversial. Various medical associations and health experts disagree over whether all women need an annual mammogram during their midlife years. Now a study suggests that far fewer women would be put through the anxiety of being called back for a second mammogram and unnecessary biopsies if screening took place every two years.

The study, published Monday in the Annals of Internal Medicine, consisted of data from more than 169,000 women age 40 to 59. Researchers led by the Group Health Research Institute in Seattle found that in 10 years of annual screening, 61% of the women will be called back for another mammogram screening because the first reading was inconclusive. About one in 12 women will be referred for a "false positive" biopsy.

But when screening occurred every other year, about 42% of women were called back for another mammogram.

Researchers also found that having prior year mammograms available made a big difference in reducing false positive readings. That's why women should try to have their mammograms taken at the same place each time or, if they switch sites, order their previous mammograms sent to the new office.

Screening every other year also did not greatly affect breast cancer severity. Among women diagnosed with cancer, those screened at two-year intervals were only slightly more likely to be diagnosed with advanced disease compared with those screened yearly.

"Women and physicians should be aware of the possibility of these harms associated with different screening intervals so they can make informed decisions about screening and be prepared for what to expect when they receive their results," the authors wrote. The study is published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

Also in the journal this month, researchers comparing digital versus traditional film mammography found little difference in breast cancer detection rates in women age 50 to 79. However, women age 40 to 49 with dense breasts may benefit from digital mammography, the authors said.

Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times



Taken from Los Angeles Times, Booster Shots; source article is below:
Annual mammography produces many false positives, study finds

Thursday, September 8, 2011

Fewer breast cancer deaths not due to screening: study

Posted: 29 July 2011

PARIS - Mammograms have played an insignificant role in falling breast cancer death rates in Europe, according to a study published Friday.

Three pairs of countries with similar access to treatment but varying levels of breast screening showed scant difference in the degree of mortality attributed to the disease, researchers reported.

The study, published online by the British Medical Journal, adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting that two decades of routine screening has yielded modest results at best.

A trio of scientists led by Philippe Autier of the International Prevention Research Institute in Lyon, France compared the mortality rates of otherwise similar health systems that began screening programs at least a decade apart.

In Northern Ireland, which began systematic mammograms in the early 1990s, the death rate among breast cancer patients dropped 29 percent from 1989 to 2006. In Ireland, mortality went down nearly as much, 26 percent, over the same period even though the country didn't set up regular screening until 10 years later.

The Netherlands and Belgium also showed a parallel drop in breast cancer mortality rates -- identical in the case of Dutch-speaking Belgium -- despite a lag time of about a decade in the implementation of screening programmes.

And in Sweden, which in 1986 pioneered systematic mammograms to detect the disease, the drop was only 16 percent, compared to 24 percent in Norway, which began to do so only in 2005.

The slim difference in mortality rates suggests that the decrease was caused by other factors, such as better treatment, the researchers said.

"Since we began studying the long-term effects on mortality, a lot of data has suggested that the impact is little to none," Autier told AFP.

"I am among those who pushed hard for systematic screening for breast cancer in the 1990s," he added.

"But now there are question marks and we have to provide answers, because we cannot continue to promote something that may not be very effective but which can lead to a certain number of false positives," where healthy women are diagnosed as having the disease, he said.

Not all researchers agree that new data show screening to have been or marginal utility.

"The improvement in the prognosis of breast cancer patients is a multi-factor phenomenon," said Jerome Viguier, head of detection and screening at France's National Cancer Institute.

"It is very difficult to distinguish between different evolutions that are complementary and move in parallel," he told AFP by phone.

Viguier also emphasised that reducing mortality -- even if it is the overarching objective of screening -- is not the only impact.

"The aim is also to intervene earlier in the disease so that treatment is less invasive, with less mutilation, and fewer scares," he said.

He also questioned the premise of the new study that the health care systems compared were similar enough to single out systematic screening as the only significant difference.

Some experts argue that the difficult decision of whether to screen -- involving trade-offs among non-comparable outcomes -- must be left to informed individuals.

Others say that physicians should continue to encourage women to undergo regular screening because even modest benefits trump potentially negative impacts.

-AFP/rt



Taken from ChannelNewsAsia.com; source article is below:
Fewer breast cancer deaths not due to screening: study


Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, April 15, 2010

Ask the doc: Pap smear screening

Pathology: EM: Papilloma Virus (HPV) Electron ...Image via Wikipedia
Pap smear screening


Query from concerned daughter

My mum is in her early 50s. I’ve been trying very hard to persuade her to go for a pap smear screening. The last time she went for the test was more than a year ago.

No matter how hard I plead with her, she insists that she is safe from cervical cancer as she has not had sexual intercourse for the past years. We also do not have any family history of cervical cancer.

Is what she says true? Or, am I being overly concerned? How often should one go for a pap smear?

I’ve read articles with various recommendations — some state that pap smears can be done once every three years, while others recommend an annual checkup.


Reply by Dr See Hui Ti
Senior Consultant, Parkway Cancer Centre;
Chairman, Cervical Cancer Awareness Campaign 2010,
Singapore Cancer Society

100 Questions & Answers Abourt Cervical Cancer (100 Questions & Answers about . . .)Cervical cancer is caused by a strain of Human Papilloma Virus (HPV). It is a highly preventable disease and is usually detected in women who fail to go for regular pap smear screening.

It is a misconception that married or married menopausal women who have not had sexual intercourse for a long time do not require pap smear.

Changes in the cells of cervix may happen many years after being exposed to HPV. A person can have HPV even years after he or she had sexual contact with an infected person.

Most infected persons do not realise they are infected or that they are passing the virus on to a partner.

Crying in the Shower-Cervical CancerIf pre-cancer cells are left undetected and untreated, they are likely to progress to cervical cancer over time. There is no symptom in the pre-cancerous and very early stage of the disease.

Most of these are detected by pap smears. A majority of abnormal smear include those showing infective, precancerous or cancerous changes. Regular pap smear screening helps protect you against the disease.

Women in the higher risk group, for instance, those with impaired immune responses, family history of cervical cancer, many sex partners or a partner who has many different sex partners, may require annual pap smear to catch any abnormalities early.

What Every Woman Should Know about Cervical CancerThe norm is to do a pap smear every two to three years. The frequency should be determined in consultation with your gynaecologist, as this provides a more accurate assessment based on the risk profile of the patient.

Regular screening provides the chance of treating pre-cancerous cells early and prevents the development of cancer.

I strongly urge your mother to go for regular pap smear screening even though her family does not have a history of cervical cancer.

At this moment, once a year can be considered as a standard, but some women may choose to have it done once every two to three years.


Say Something! Help End Cervical CancerThe information provided above is for your general knowledge only. You should seek medical advice or treatment for your condition. Email questions to health@newstoday.com.sg.

From TODAY, Health - Tuesday, 06-April-2010
-----

Blogged with the Flock Browser