The Delaware Gazette

Study finds some early breast cancer overdiagnosed

STEPHANIE NANO

Asso­ci­ated Press

NEW YORK — For years, women have been urged to get screened for breast can­cer because the ear­lier it’s found, the bet­ter. Now researchers are report­ing more evi­dence sug­gest­ing that’s not always the case.

A study in Nor­way esti­mates that between 15 and 25 per­cent of breast can­cers found by mam­mo­grams wouldn’t have caused any prob­lems dur­ing a woman’s life­time, but these tumors were being treated any­way. Once detected, early tumors are sur­gi­cally removed and some­times treated with radi­a­tion or chemother­apy because there’s no cer­tain way to fig­ure out which ones may be dan­ger­ous and which are harmless.

“When you look for can­cer early and you look really hard, you find forms that are ulti­mately never going to bother the patient,” said Dr. H. Gilbert Welch of the Dart­mouth Insti­tute for Health Pol­icy and Clin­i­cal Prac­tice, who was not part of the research. “It’s a side effect of early diagnosis.”

The study is the lat­est to explore over­diag­no­sis from rou­tine mam­mo­grams — find­ing tumors that grow so slowly or not at all and that would not have caused symp­toms or death. Pre­vi­ous esti­mates of the prob­lem have varied.

The researchers took advan­tage of the stag­gered decade-long intro­duc­tion of a screen­ing pro­gram in Nor­way, start­ing in 1996. That allowed them to com­pare the num­ber of breast can­cers in coun­ties where screen­ing was offered with those in areas that didn’t yet have the pro­gram. Their analy­sis also included a decade before mam­mo­grams were offered.

They esti­mated that for every 2,500 women offered screen­ing, one death from breast can­cer will be pre­vented but six to 10 women will be over­diag­nosed and treated.

Study leader Dr. Mette Kalager and other experts said women need to be bet­ter informed about the pos­si­bil­ity that mam­mo­grams can pick up can­cers that will never be life-threatening when they con­sider get­ting screened. The dilemma is that doc­tors don’t have a good way of telling which won’t be dangerous.

“Once you’ve decided to undergo mam­mog­ra­phy screen­ing, you also have to deal with the con­se­quences that you might be over­diag­nosed,” said Kalager, a breast sur­geon at Norway’s Tele­mark Hos­pi­tal and a vis­it­ing sci­en­tist at Har­vard School of Pub­lic Health. “By then, I think, it’s too late. You have to get treated.”

Kalager and her col­leagues looked only at inva­sive breast can­cer. The study did not include DCIS, or duc­tal car­ci­noma in situ — an ear­lier stage can­cer con­fined to a milk duct.

Under the Nor­way pro­gram, screen­ing was offered every two years to women ages 50 to 69.

Researchers ana­lyzed nearly 40,000 breast can­cer cases, includ­ing 7,793 that were detected after rou­tine screen­ing began. They esti­mated that between 1,169 and 1,948 of those women were over­diag­nosed and got treat­ment they didn’t need.

Their find­ings appear in Tuesday’s Annals of Inter­nal Medicine.

The prob­lem of over­diag­no­sis has been long rec­og­nized with prostate can­cer. Darthmouth’s Welch said it’s also a prob­lem in thy­roid and lung can­cer, a child­hood tumor called neu­rob­las­toma and even melanoma. He con­sid­ers breast can­cer screen­ing a close call.

“The truth is that we’ve exag­ger­ated the ben­e­fits of screen­ing and we’ve ignored the harms,” he said. “I think we’re headed to a place where we real­ize we need to give women a more bal­anced mes­sage: Mam­mog­ra­phy helps some peo­ple but it leads oth­ers to be treated unnecessarily.”

An edi­to­r­ial pub­lished with the study said over­diag­no­sis prob­a­bly occurs more often in the United States because Amer­i­can women often start annual screen­ing at an ear­lier age and radi­ol­o­gists in the U.S. are more likely to report sus­pi­cious find­ings than those in Europe.

Radi­ol­o­gists could help by rais­ing the thresh­old for not­ing abnor­mal­i­ties, wrote Dr. Joann Elmore of the Uni­ver­sity of Wash­ing­ton School of Med­i­cine and Dr. Suzanne Fletcher of Har­vard Med­ical School.

A “watch-and-wait” approach has been sug­gested instead of an imme­di­ate biopsy, but the edi­to­r­ial writ­ers acknowl­edge that could be a “tough sell” for some women and radi­ol­o­gists alike.

They said most women aren’t aware of the pos­si­bil­ity of overdiagnosis.

“We have an eth­i­cal respon­si­bil­ity to alert women to this phe­nom­e­non,” they wrote.

AP News Posted by on Apr 2 2012. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS Feed. Comments can be made below.

Leave a Reply

 

Search Archive

Search by Date
Search by Category
Search with Google

Open M - F 8am to 5pm | 740-363-1161 | 40 N. Sandusky Street, Suite 202, Delaware, OH 43015

We use third-party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our Web site. For more information click here.
Click on the following for legal information: Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions
Copyright © 2010 - 2012, Ohio Community Media