Recent BMJ Mammography Study Deeply Flawed –Women Urged to Continue Screening Tests

jamesline.com /recent-bmj-mammography-study-deeply-flawed-women-urged-to-continue-screening-tests/

February 25, 2014 12:15 pm

Women questioning the value of screening mammography based on a recent study published in BMJ(formerly British Medical Journal) should pause and look more closely at the data. Medical societies andbreast cancer specialists across the nation agree: The data is flawed and misleading. There is no questionthat screening mammography saves lives.

More than 200,000 women are diagnosed with breast cancer every year. Mammograms aren’t perfect, butthey are still the best tool we have to find cancers early, when patients have the most options for treatment.Mammography is about 8- percent accurate in detecting cancer, and the cancers that are found throughmammography alone are typically small (average 1.0-1.5 cm). The average size of a breast cancerdetected on physical examination is 2.0-2.5 cm. Only 10 percent of invasive cancers 1 cm or smaller havespread to lymph nodes, compared with almost to 35 percent of those 2 cm in size. Cancers that havespread to lymph nodes are more likely to be lethal.

Flawed Data on Mammography

The Canadian National Breast Cancer Screening Study (CNBCSS), which served as the basis for theFebruary 2014 BMJ paper, has been publicly denounced as a reputable source of data by professionalmedical organizations such as the American College of Radiology and Society of Breast Imaging for manyreasons, including:

The trial used second-hand mammography machines, with outdated and inaccurate technology.Images were compromised by “scatter,” which makes all the breast radiologic images appear

cloudy and the cancers difficult to see. Technologists were not taught proper positioning of thebreast, resulting in missed cancers, and CNBSS radiologists involved in the study had not hadproper training in mammographic interpretation. Would you want a radiologist who typicallyanalyzes images of the stomach to interpret your mammogram?

In the BMJ manuscript, only 32 percent of cancers were detected by mammography – an extremelylow number indicative of the low-quality of mammographic images that were gathered and used tosupport the study authors’ conclusion that breast mammography is not valuable. At least two thirdsof the cancers should have been detected with mammography alone.

Non-randomized placement of patients into groups for this study (i.e., screening versus noscreening) most likely resulted in more women with advanced breast cancers being assigned to thescreening arm of the study, which guaranteed more deaths among the screened women than thosein the control group. This study violated the No. 1 rule of conducting clinical trials: To be a valid,randomized, controlled clinical trial, investigators must assign each participant to a study group atrandom to avoid skewing the data. Nothing should be known about those participants until they havebeen assigned to one of the study groups. In this study, every participant underwent a clinical breastexam by a nurse, so investigators knew if the women had breast lumps or enlarged lymph nodesunder the armpits – often a sign of advanced (and less treatable) disease.

No ‘Routine’ Breast Cancer

I’m part of a subspecialized breast cancer team based at the Stefanie Spielman Comprehensive BreastCenter at The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center – Arthur G. James Cancer Hospitaland Richard Solove Research Institute (OSUCCC – James). We stand behind the American CancerSociety’s recommendation that women age 40 or older have a screening mammogram every year. Womenunder age 40 with a strong family history of breast or other cancers may want to talk to a physician abouttheir personal risk and the benefit of genetic testing.

Because every woman’s breast tissue is different, particularly as we age and our hormone levels change,we rely on advanced diagnostic imaging tools like 3D mammography (tomosynthesis), ultrasound andbreast MRI to pinpoint concerning areas with more accuracy and avoid taking invasive measures unlessabsolutely necessary.

Our No. 1 goal is to eradicate our patients’ breast cancer, but we also want to replace the fear and anxietythat come with a breast cancer diagnosis with knowledge and a comprehensive, personalized care planthat fits each patient’s needs.

One in eight women will be diagnosed with breast cancer, but the disease is highly treatable when caughtearly. I urge women to talk to their doctors about screening mammography; take the time to understandyour family medical history; and learn your personal risk for breast cancer.

By Mitva Patel, Breast Radiologist, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center – Arthur G.James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute