Researchers debate the usefulness of regular mammography
Here we go again. Another study raises questions about the benefits of mammograms, and another set of confusing statements issue forth from experts.
Last month, Dr Otis Brawley, the American Cancer Society’s chief medical officer, said that the medical profession had exaggerated the benefits of cancer screening, and that if a woman refused mammography, “I would not think badly of her, but I would like her to get it.”

Then, the cancer society issued a statement saying women over 40 should keep having mammograms every year, as seven studies have shown that the test decreases the risk of death from breast cancer.
But the statement also said mammography can “miss cancers that need treatment, and in some cases finds disease that does not need treatment.” In other words, the test may lead to some women being treated, and being exposed to serious side effects, for cancers that would not have killed them. Some researchers estimate that as many as one-third of cancers picked up by screening would not be fatal even if left untreated. Right now, nobody knows which ones.

Dr Laura J Esserman, a breast surgeon from the University of California, San Francisco, and author of a report in The Journal of the American Medical Association that touched off the latest debate about mammography, described breast cancers as slow, medium or fast in growth rate and aggressiveness.
She said screening seemed to be good at finding the slow ones, which probably didn’t need treatment, but might not catch the aggressive and deadly types before they began to spread. But it also picks up the medium ones, and in that case, women may benefit most. Again, more research is needed to figure out which kind of tumour a patient has.

... contd.