Mammography Debate Puzzles Many

(CBS)  Some women like 47-year-old Sharon Whitmore, a breast cancer survivor, credit mammograms with saving their lives.

Whitmore, cancer-free for almost a year, told CBS News she fears the guidelines released this week by a federal government task force will prevent women her age and younger from getting routine protection.

The task force, CBS News correspondent Michelle Miller reported, is an independent panel comprised of 16 medical experts including clinicians, pediatricians and bio statisticians, which regularly reviews cancer screenings and preventive care.

In 1997, its data revealed similar findings, igniting a vigorous public and congressional debate much like today's, which has prompted the Obama administration to distance itself from the panel's findings.

Read More on Healthy Living

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told CBS News, "Our recommendations really are do what you've always done, read the task force report, but then talk to your doctor."

Sebelius says the panel will not dictate policy or determine what services are covered by the government.

"No coverage changes will be coming, Medicare will continue to pay for mammograms. Medicaid will continue to pay for mammograms," Sebelius said. "And frankly, I'd be stunned if private insurers change any coverage decisions."

But some physicians think the panel's findings have merit.

Dr. Susan Love, of Susan Love Foundation, said, "The data doesn't support doing mammography screening in younger women. It doesn't show that it will save lives or change the outcome."

The National Cancer Institute says it will include the new guidelines in information it sends to doctors.

CBS News medical correspondent Dr. Jennifer Ashton said on "The Early Show" doctors have known that mammography is not a "perfect screening tool," however, it is the best doctors currently have.

"Like many women, a lot of doctors are feeling, don't remove it or take it that away from our arsenal without replacing it with something better at the same time," Ashton said. "And I think that women and doctors are feeling that controversy."

As for Sebelius' assertions that the government is not taking mammograms away, Ashton said, that's "for now."

She added, "I don't think we've heard the end of it."

[jkretz]

Do these recent alterations in cancer screening, breast and cervical, have anything to do with the preparation for Health Care Reform? It seems as though the insurance companies and the government will be prepping themselves for excuses not to have to pay for these cancer screenings due to these new recommendations!!! Something is not right here, but can't quite put my finger on it!! There is definitely something brewing and it's not only going to cost the American public money, but it looks as though it may cost a lot of us our lives due to the lack of screenings!!! Something is very rotten in Denmark!!!

[wizcat123]

Obamacare = less healthcare + higher premiums + higher profits for AARP. Obama said he would change!!!

If you voted for Obama here is the change that is coming to you ..... let's insure 30 Million uninsured at the expense of the 270 Million that are already insured so everyone has the right to low quality healthcare ... but Obama, Reid, Pelosi and them will not be included in our healthcare plan they have their own special plans ....

[mammographer]

The woman in the picture is looking at a lesion on a sonogram. It is not a mammogram.

[mammographer]

The USPSTF did conclude from the published data that screening women in their 40s will reduce cancer mortality. The quote from the paper, "Screening for Breast Cancer: US Preventive "... "Recommendation Statement" that, "There is convincing evidence that screening with ?lm
mammography reduces breast cancer mortality, with a
greater absolute reduction for women aged 50 to 74 years
than for women aged 40 to 49 years." The experts that say the USPSTF found no evidence of benefit are wrong. The USPSTF did say the harms outweighed the benefit because 1904 women (in their 40s) would have to be screened for every life saved. Too many of the so called experts who support the USPSTF imply that radiation exposure is one of the significant harms. The following are quotes from the same paper which is available online, "Radiation exposure (from radiologic tests), although a minor concern, is also a consideration." That implies that radiation effect is a minor concern.
The next paragraph states the main harms of the screening process, "Adequate evidence suggests that the overall harms associated with mammography are moderate for every age group considered, although the main components of the harms shift over time. Although false-positive test results, overdiagnosis, and unnecessary earlier treatments are problems for all ages.." I believe that passage implies the major harms are false-positive mammograms, overdiagnosis, and overtreatment. So the USPSTF did conclude that lives could be saved if annual screening is started at age 40, but that nearly (!) the same number of lives could be saved by starting screening at age 50 with exams on a biennial basis, with significant reduction in harms. Ask the USPSTF to divulge the excess number of women dying from breast cancer in the United States predicted by the computer models if biennial screening starts at age 50 (compared to annual screening at age 40).

[inesje88]

Bet the office of Management and Budget are behind this. Mr. Orszag most likey realizes this a way to keep the insurances happy and in the spirit to donate money to the elected. The health insurance companies wrote the bills. If the US government spins the results of studies to show many of the preventative tests Americans have had their insurance pay for up until now, aren't really needed, the insurance companies will no longer have to pay for them. Guess "donating" $1.4 million a day to the elected really pays off for the lobbyists and the elected. the only loosers are the American public who pay a great deal of money to the health insurance mafia. It is impossible to have the elected care about the public when they are rewarded moneitarily greatly by not caring. Wonder if the eleceted's insurance will cover routine mammograms for women starting at age 40? We, the employers of the elected, need to find this out. They work for us, we don't work for them. This entire thing seems like a gift to the health insurance cartel.

[crikeytx46]

Mary Landrieu's (D-Louisiana) vote is being bought for 100 million (complicated language in the health bill- go figure) but you wouldn't know that unless you went to ABC.com where they actually did some investigative journalism.

Oh and Harry Reid's version of the Senate Health Care bill does infact include a MONTHLY Fee for abortions!!

Now let's shed some more light on this over the top legislation!!!

[medwriter56]

This latest 'expert' recommendation is just another way for the insurance companies/banking industry to use a third party agencyto validate a reduction in health care spending. It is similar to the recent move by government and managed care to push cheap methadone as an opioid-alternative for patients with chronic pain. Yes, those patients won?t have to worry about chronic pain because many of them will simply overdose and stop breathing. And people are worried about the pharmaceutical companies! haha The banking and insurance industry lobbyists are the ones who are taking care of business! Who cares if a few more women in their 30's die? What was that statement by Ebeneezer Scrooge...something about 'decreasing the surplus population of the earth'? Greed is a disease...the worst kind of disease. It is manifesting globally in epidemic proportions. I've worked in diagnostic imaging for 30 + years. Early detection via mammography saves lives and significantly reduces costs associated with the management of late stage cancers. For the last several decades more and more women of a younger age have been developing breast cancer. Advocate the first screening mammo at age 50? The insurance companies can certainly rest easy, as many of those unfortunate women with silent breast cancers will be dead by the time their 50th ?memorial? birthdays roll around. I am suddenly beginning to understand what it is like to live in a third world country.

[kristingabriel]

It was T.S. Wiley, who wrote Sex, Lies, and Menopause, (Harper Collins) warned women six years ago about the dangers of mammography. They devoted one entire chapter to mammograms and breast cancer. This recent news from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) -- recommendations that women get mammograms every one or two years starting at 40, now recommending biennial screening mammography for women aged 50 to 74 years -- is not surprise a to Wiley.

Quoting from her book, Chapter 5, p. 97, Wiley stated, ?Using X-rays to see abnormalities in breast tissue had been around since 1913, but had never really become a diagnostic tool until the mid-1970s. When a pinpoint lesion appears in your breast, there may already be cancer cells multiplying in the shin of your leg, in your bone marrow. The pin-point size lesion that a mammogram picks up is only a symptom of what?s happening elsewhere in your body.?

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, a government panel of doctors and scientists, concluded that such early and frequent screenings often lead to false alarms and unneeded biopsies without substantially improving women's odds of survival.

The book also stated, "The other problem with mammography is obvious: Science only knows of one absolute carcinogen to human tissue on the planet, and that carcinogen is ionizing radiation. If the exposed cells don?t die, the DNA breaks and they mutate. Cancer rarely starts with a mutated gene; but a gene certainly can be mutated by an outside-the-body influence like the ionizing radiation of power lines or mammography. Mammography is ionizing radiation."

[medwriter56]

I agree, ionizing radiation is a known carcinogen. Mammography is the best low-cost screening tool available to spot early breast cancer. It is not a perfect tool. Women (and men!) do have a choice: mammography or a prayer. Hormone replacement therapy can also be problematic, but for the women who need it, it is their only option and most are grateful. Medical care is and always will be about the risk-benefit ratio. Each individual needs to reach their own decision about the benefits of a medical test, intervention or therapy. I worry when the government and banking/insurance industry makes that decision for us, especially when it is based on profit margin, nothing more.

[inesje88]

Another carcinogen is fluoride, yet we pump into our water and our toothpaste. It is a by product to the production of aluminum. A little fluoride also goes a long way, since it builds up in your bones, teeth and food chain. It is so good that I.G. Farben produced for Hitler to add to the water of the "guests" he had residing in the concentration camps. Drink a glass of water while reading the warning label on your fluoridated toothpaste. Enjoy.

[kristingabriel]

It was T.S. Wiley, who wrote Sex, Lies, and Menopause, (Harper Collins) warned women six years ago about the dangers of mammography. They devoted one entire chapter to mammograms and breast cancer. This recent news from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) -- recommendations that women get mammograms every one or two years starting at 40, now recommending biennial screening mammography for women aged 50 to 74 years -- is not surprise a to Wiley.

Quoting from her book, Chapter 5, p. 97, Wiley stated, ?Using X-rays to see abnormalities in breast tissue had been around since 1913, but had never really become a diagnostic tool until the mid-1970s. When a pinpoint lesion appears in your breast, there may already be cancer cells multiplying in the shin of your leg, in your bone marrow. The pin-point size lesion that a mammogram picks up is only a symptom of what?s happening elsewhere in your body.?

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, a government panel of doctors and scientists, concluded that such early and frequent screenings often lead to false alarms and unneeded biopsies without substantially improving women's odds of survival.

The book also stated, ?The other problem with mammography is obvious: Science only knows of one absolute carcinogen to human tissue on the planet, and that carcinogen is ionizing radiation. If the exposed cells don?t die, the DNA breaks and they mutate. Cancer rarely starts with a mutated gene; but a gene certainly can be mutated by an outside-the-body influence like the ionizing radiation of power lines or mammography. Mammography is ionizing radiation.?

[DianaLW]

I had my first mammogram when I turned 40. The results came back "highly suspicious of carcinoma of the left breast". I had surgery to remove the affected area and it was discovered that I had Ductal Carcinoma in situ. It was removed, I had radiation treatments and I am now fine. The surgeon told me that I was very lucky that we caught it so early. He told me that if we had waited just two more years for that first mammogram, it could have be a very different result. Since that incident, I have a mammogram annually and I have had no recurrence. I am about to celebrate my 51st birthday. If mammograms weren't started until age 50, I may not have lived to see my 50th birthday.