Study: Mammograms haven't cut rate of advanced breast cancer

For years I've said mammograms are more likely a scam, rather than a real help in detecting early signs of cancer. How can it be healthy to smash a woman's breast flat till it hurts? How many times have we heard it driven home by the media? Have you had your annual mammogram? Well, it turns out my suspicions, and probably the suspicions of many others, were right...

"Screening offers hope that cancer can be detected in an early, localized phase when it's more amenable to treatment," they write, but that assumes that cancer starts in one place, grows and then spreads. If that was always true, screening would reduce the rate of advanced cancers.
And that has not happened. The rate of breast cancers detected at an advanced stage has been stable since 1975, despite wide use of mammography since the 1980s. The average age of women diagnosed with cancer also has remained around 63, another sign cancers are not being found sooner.
The trends suggest that some breast cancers are already "systemic" or widely spread from the start, and that finding them sooner has limited impact.
"Screening mammography has been unable to identify those bad cancers, destined to become metastatic, at an earlier stage. That doesn't say mammography doesn't help less aggressive cancers," but those are less likely to prove deadly, Welch said.

Article
Ok. So scam may be too strong of a word, but how many times has the medical industry harped and harped on something, only to find out later we spent billions of dollars listening to, and heeding the latest medical flop? That's not to say medical science is a failure. It most certainly is not. Look at what CAN be done today, as opposed to even 50 years ago. But I still get the impression we're being scammed occasionally, to the tune of billions of dollars to submit to the latest torture device. In this case, the boob smasher. Step right up, ladies.

a reply to: Klassified

Mammograms are a good tool for early detection and they are linked to a decrease in breast cancer death's. It's not a scam, but they are more expensive than they should be, just like most diagnostic and screening exams in the U.S.

Also highlighted are steadily decreasing breast cancer death rates, due in part to improvements in screenings and treatment.

Link

Edit to add:

Here, let me give you an analogy. Saying that mammograms are pointless or a scam is like saying that you shouldn't do CPR because sometimes if people are too far gone they die anyway.

The purpose of screening mammograms is to catch it early before it is too late.

a reply to: Klassified

The scam is that as soon as the (alleged) Affordable Healthcare Act (aka Obamacare) was enacted, the entire philosophy of early screening for diseases has been thrown to the wayside.

As soon as a law was enacted that reduces coverage and increases costs of insurance, we are periodically told that all sorts of pre-screenings aren't necessary.

Note: The idea of Insurance (purchasing coverage before one needs it and in the hopes it will not be used) was utterly destroyed by the ACA.

Edit to Add:
I'm not really a fan of people telling others which Forum their posts belong... but this should be filed in the Hoax Forum.

a reply to: redhorse

The purpose of screening mammograms is to catch it early before it is too late.

"And that has not happened." To quote the article.

"Screening offers hope that cancer can be detected in an early, localized phase when it's more amenable to treatment," they write, but that assumes that cancer starts in one place, grows and then spreads. If that was always true, screening would reduce the rate of advanced cancers.
And that has not happened. The rate of breast cancers detected at an advanced stage has been stable since 1975, despite wide use of mammography since the 1980s. The average age of women diagnosed with cancer also has remained around 63, another sign cancers are not being found sooner.
The trends suggest that some breast cancers are already "systemic" or widely spread from the start, and that finding them sooner has limited impact.
"Screening mammography has been unable to identify those bad cancers, destined to become metastatic, at an earlier stage. That doesn't say mammography doesn't help less aggressive cancers," but those are less likely to prove deadly, Welch said.

I did concede in the OP, scam might be too strong of a word. But I still maintain that the results have come no where near matching the hype. And this isn't the first article I've read saying just that.

Also, forgive me for being cynical of one of the biggest pushers of Mammograms.

a reply to: eluryh22

I'm not really a fan of people telling others which Forum their posts belong... but this should be filed in the Hoax Forum.

There's an alert button at the top of the page. Feel free to use it.

The scam is that as soon as the (alleged) Affordable Healthcare Act (aka Obamacare) was enacted, the entire philosophy of early screening for diseases has been thrown to the wayside.

We can at least partially agree on this. I'm sure there has been some negative effect.

a reply to: Klassified

They don't prevent cancer, they detect it. So the rates will be exactly the same.

Not sure what you're trying to say.

a reply to: Klassified

The conclusion is unintuitive so it's not surprising that it's continued for so long. Bit much for you to instantly conclude that it was all part of some nefarious scam. Most of us in the civilized world have free healthcare so claiming it's a scam is silly.

a reply to: Klassified

The only problem with screening is overdiagnosis and overtreatment: in the UK for every 1300 lives saved by screening, 4000 women are offered treatment that they did not need in the first place. This roughly means that for every survivor that owes her life to mammography, 3 women would have never been bothered by their cancer if they had not been screened.

This is from the NHS Breast screening leaflet, to help women make an informed choice.





Link: www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk...

As far as the US is concerned, if you check the SEER data you will see that between 2000 to 2010 there is a decline in breast cancer rate, from 26 per 100,000 women to 21 per 100,000 (an average of almost 2% decline per year).
seer.cancer.gov...

Health screenings are a great tool, because prevention is the best way to achieve good health and wellbeing, just like you do an MOT on your car to prevent problems.

a reply to: Agartha
You're the first person to post without the knee-jerk response. Thank you. Awesome post. One of the main reasons I wrote the OP the way I did, is because I knew there would be at least 3 knee-jerks to one thoughtful post. The other reason is because I think all too often, we the people, are socially engineered into thinking the way we're told, without doing our homework. If the medical industry says it's the greatest thing since sliced bread through the media, we're all over it.

I am not against screening, but I have questioned the efficacy of mammograms ever since I read an article years ago by a doctor who said it was only marginal at early detection, but it was better than nothing. He also noted what I mentioned about breast tissue being damaged, but said for now it was what we had to work with.

My point being, they have been hyped and over-emphasized, leading to unrealistic expectations by the public. Mammograms are not a miracle, or a safety net. They are just one small tool in the fight against a deadly killer.

Thanks again for a thoughtful post.

a reply to: Klassified

You are welcome!

Based on the UK statistics, 1 survivor every 200 women may not seem much, but it is better than no survivors at all. I agree that perhaps mammograms are not as effective as we once thought but, just like you said, every small tool is essential on our fight against cancer. And prevention is the greatest tool.

And regarding our health, it is all about informed choice: people should read statistics and whatever information is available before making a decision. I will definitely have a mammography when I reach 50, this my personal choice based on what I know regarding breast cancer.

a reply to: Klassified

Why would they decrease the rates of breast cancer since they are designed to detect it as early as possible. If they are detecting it, then it's there, right?

Getting your breast x-rayed isn't a prevention measure.

The only thing early detection prevents is the likelihood of death because you didn't find your cancer until it was too late.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Klassified

Why would they decrease the rates of breast cancer since they are designed to detect it as early as possible. If they are detecting it, then it's there, right?

Getting your breast x-rayed isn't a prevention measure.

The only thing early detection prevents is the likelihood of death because you didn't find your cancer until it was too late.

You are the second person to mention this. Can you point out to me where either of you came up with the idea that I, or the article are saying that mammograms prevent cancer, except in the sense that it is hoped it will catch cancer before it gets any worse? I see no place I or the author said anything beyond that.