Skip to content
  • About
  • Contact
  • Contribute
  • Book
  • Careers
  • Podcast
  • Recommended
  • Speaking
  • All
  • Physician
  • Practice
  • Policy
  • Finance
  • Conditions
  • .edu
  • Patient
  • Meds
  • Tech
  • Social
  • Video
    • All
    • Physician
    • Practice
    • Policy
    • Finance
    • Conditions
    • .edu
    • Patient
    • Meds
    • Tech
    • Social
    • Video
    • About
    • Contact
    • Contribute
    • Book
    • Careers
    • Podcast
    • Recommended
    • Speaking

Radiologists on the new mammogram study. Who’s right?

Jennifer Gunter, MD
Conditions
February 24, 2014
Share
Tweet
Share

The BMJ recently published the latest results from the Canadian National Breast Screening Study (CNBSS). A brief summary of the CNBSS: Women were randomly assigned to annual mammography or breast exams and then the outcomes tracked. The results in the BMJ: mammography did not improve survival.

This is a very interesting study and when I first started working on this post I wanted to delve more into the science of this article and the growing body of literature that is shedding some doubt on the validity of mammography. Doing my due diligence I read the study several times, read the responses that have already appeared on the BMJ site, read some other studies, and read both the Canadian and the American College of Radiology responses. And that’s where I got stuck.

The Canadian radiologists basically said they agreed with the ACR who called the study “incredibly flawed and misleading” (which IMO are fighting words, it’s a bit like saying your study is a piece of garbage and should be ignored). Of course this piqued my interest.

The ACR claim rests on these 3 points:

  • The mammography equipment is old/bad and this was confirmed by independent experts. The lead author, Anthony Miller has refuted this claim in interviews with several Canadian news outlets and an expert from Dartmouth (Dr. Gilbert Welch) calls this study the most meticulously conducted and reported randomized trial on screening mammography. The ACR cites a paper in a radiology journal from 1990 that they say evaluated the equipment and Dr. B. Kopans, a Professor of radiology from Harvard, says he personally reviewed the equipment and found it lacking. How do you deal with these kinds of claims? Maybe ask the radiologists who read the films? It is an important point.
  • Only 32% of cancers were detected by mammography in the study. This is the most interesting from a scientific standpoint and not a “he said/she said” argument. I wanted to write more on this until I saw the last point made by the ACR …
  • Where the ACR basically accuses the authors of misconduct. The ACR statement: “To be valid, randomized, controlled trials (RCT) must employ a system to ensure that the assignment of women to the screening group or the unscreened control group is random. Nothing can/should be known about participants until they have been assigned to one of these groups. The CNBSS violated these fundamental rules. Every woman first had a clinical breast examination by a trained nurse so that they knew which women had breast lumps, many of which were cancers, and which women had large lymph nodes in their armpits many of which indicated advanced cancer. Before assigning the women to be in the group offered screening or the control women, investigators knew who had large incurable cancers. This was a major violation of RCT protocol. It most likely resulted in the statistically significant excess of women with advanced breast cancers assigned to the screening arm compared to those assigned to the control arm. This guaranteed more deaths among the screened women than the control women. The five year survival from breast cancer among women ages 40–49 in Canada in the 1980s was only 75 percent, yet the control women in the CNBSS, who were supposed to reflect the Canadian population at the time, had a greater than 90 percent five year survival. This indicates that cancers may have been shifted from the control arm to the screening arm. Coupling the fundamentally corrupted allocation process …”   (the italics are mine).

However, the exact wording from the BMJ article about the randomization is as follows:

The examiners had no role in the randomisation that followed; this was performed by the study coordinators in each centre. Randomisation was individual and stratified by centre and five year age group. Irrespective of the findings on physical examination, women aged 40-49 were independently and blindly assigned randomly to receive mammography or no mammography.

So the authors are saying their randomization was blinded and the ACR’s counter-claim is that is couldn’t have been. Both can’t be right. The ACR is either accusing the author of lying or saying he had rogue study nurses who didn’t follow protocol. The ACR does not provide any references to support this claim.

This last part of the ACR claim sounds a lot like school yard taunt, “You lied. How do I know? Because I said so.” It is the kind of claim one makes when one, a) hasn’t thought it all through and is letting emotions rule, b) has an otherwise weak argument that needs to be bolstered, or c) you want to be over the top to get page clicks. This accusation actually leads me to evaluate the ACR’s other two claims with greater scrutiny.

I contacted both the Canadian and the American Colleges of Radiology for clarification. I specifically asked the ACR for hard data to back up this 3rd claim. The Canadians said they’d call (they haven’t) and the ACR replied as follows:

Critiques of study design and execution are routinely done for all scientific studies and do not constitute accusations of fraud. However, the irregularities in this trial design and execution raise valid scientific concerns. It is not a matter of whether we, or anyone else, “believe” trial coordinators, but that this is science. The responsibility lies with the trial conductors to demonstrate the soundness of the randomization process. It is not a matter of others in the scientific community to simply “believe.” The trial design and the subsequent outlier results raise these valid questions which are clearly outlined in many peer-reviewed publications cited in our response and elsewhere. We stand behind the statement that this study should not be used to formulate breast cancer screening policy.

For me this statement isn’t enough. If you are a national organization representing physicians you cannot continue to make claims about how subjects were randomized without proof. Saying the patients weren’t randomized appropriately isn’t a study design issue, it’s an ethical conduct issue because the authors say they did randomize blindly. The science goes both ways. In essence the ACR is saying, facts matter but we don’t have to provide any.

If the ACR is right and the equipment was faulty and the science doesn’t support a 32% breast cancer detection rate by mammography why bring up a completely unsubstantiated 3rd claim about a corrupted randomization process? The science should be enough, don’t you think?

It’s food for thought.

ADVERTISEMENT

Jennifer Gunter is an obstetrician-gynecologist and author of The Preemie Primer. She blogs at her self-titled site, Dr. Jen Gunter.

Prev

Don't blame doctors for going concierge

February 23, 2014 Kevin 95
…
Next

Patients can’t solve health costs, even with skin in the game

February 24, 2014 Kevin 40
…

Tagged as: Oncology/Hematology, Radiology

Post navigation

< Previous Post
Don't blame doctors for going concierge
Next Post >
Patients can’t solve health costs, even with skin in the game

ADVERTISEMENT

More by Jennifer Gunter, MD

  • The Ellen Show broadcasts potentially harmful information about ovarian cancer screening

    Jennifer Gunter, MD
  • Dear science: an appreciation

    Jennifer Gunter, MD
  • Are there too many female OB/GYNs?

    Jennifer Gunter, MD

More in Conditions

  • Addressing menstrual health inequities in adolescents

    Callia Georgoulis
  • Healing beyond the surface: Why proper chronic wound care matters

    Alvin May, MD
  • Why specialist pain clinics and addiction treatment services require strong primary care

    Olumuyiwa Bamgbade, MD
  • What a childhood stroke taught me about the future of neurosurgery and the promise of vagus nerve stimulation

    William J. Bannon IV
  • Facing terminal cancer as a doctor and mother

    Kelly Curtin-Hallinan, DO
  • Why doctors must stop ignoring unintentional weight loss in patients with obesity

    Samantha Malley, FNP-C
  • Most Popular

  • Past Week

    • Forced voicemail and diagnosis codes are endangering patient access to medications

      Arthur Lazarus, MD, MBA | Meds
    • The One Big Beautiful Bill and the fragile heart of rural health care

      Holland Haynie, MD | Policy
    • America’s ER crisis: Why the system is collapsing from within

      Kristen Cline, BSN, RN | Conditions
    • Why timing, not surgery, determines patient survival

      Michael Karch, MD | Conditions
    • How early meetings and after-hours events penalize physician-mothers

      Samira Jeimy, MD, PhD and Menaka Pai, MD | Physician
    • FDA delays could end vital treatment for rare disease patients

      GJ van Londen, MD | Meds
  • Past 6 Months

    • Forced voicemail and diagnosis codes are endangering patient access to medications

      Arthur Lazarus, MD, MBA | Meds
    • How President Biden’s cognitive health shapes political and legal trust

      Muhamad Aly Rifai, MD | Conditions
    • Why are medical students turning away from primary care? [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • The One Big Beautiful Bill and the fragile heart of rural health care

      Holland Haynie, MD | Policy
    • Why “do no harm” might be harming modern medicine

      Sabooh S. Mubbashar, MD | Physician
    • Here’s what providers really need in a modern EHR

      Laura Kohlhagen, MD, MBA | Tech
  • Recent Posts

    • Addressing menstrual health inequities in adolescents

      Callia Georgoulis | Conditions
    • How to advance workforce development through research mentorship and evidence-based management

      Olumuyiwa Bamgbade, MD | Physician
    • The truth about perfection and identity in health care

      Ryan Nadelson, MD | Physician
    • Civil discourse as a leadership competency: the case for curiosity in medicine

      All Levels Leadership | Physician
    • Healing beyond the surface: Why proper chronic wound care matters

      Alvin May, MD | Conditions
    • Why specialist pain clinics and addiction treatment services require strong primary care

      Olumuyiwa Bamgbade, MD | Conditions

Subscribe to KevinMD and never miss a story!

Get free updates delivered free to your inbox.


Find jobs at
Careers by KevinMD.com

Search thousands of physician, PA, NP, and CRNA jobs now.

Learn more

View 5 Comments >

Founded in 2004 by Kevin Pho, MD, KevinMD.com is the web’s leading platform where physicians, advanced practitioners, nurses, medical students, and patients share their insight and tell their stories.

Social

  • Like on Facebook
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Connect on Linkedin
  • Subscribe on Youtube
  • Instagram

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Most Popular

  • Past Week

    • Forced voicemail and diagnosis codes are endangering patient access to medications

      Arthur Lazarus, MD, MBA | Meds
    • The One Big Beautiful Bill and the fragile heart of rural health care

      Holland Haynie, MD | Policy
    • America’s ER crisis: Why the system is collapsing from within

      Kristen Cline, BSN, RN | Conditions
    • Why timing, not surgery, determines patient survival

      Michael Karch, MD | Conditions
    • How early meetings and after-hours events penalize physician-mothers

      Samira Jeimy, MD, PhD and Menaka Pai, MD | Physician
    • FDA delays could end vital treatment for rare disease patients

      GJ van Londen, MD | Meds
  • Past 6 Months

    • Forced voicemail and diagnosis codes are endangering patient access to medications

      Arthur Lazarus, MD, MBA | Meds
    • How President Biden’s cognitive health shapes political and legal trust

      Muhamad Aly Rifai, MD | Conditions
    • Why are medical students turning away from primary care? [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • The One Big Beautiful Bill and the fragile heart of rural health care

      Holland Haynie, MD | Policy
    • Why “do no harm” might be harming modern medicine

      Sabooh S. Mubbashar, MD | Physician
    • Here’s what providers really need in a modern EHR

      Laura Kohlhagen, MD, MBA | Tech
  • Recent Posts

    • Addressing menstrual health inequities in adolescents

      Callia Georgoulis | Conditions
    • How to advance workforce development through research mentorship and evidence-based management

      Olumuyiwa Bamgbade, MD | Physician
    • The truth about perfection and identity in health care

      Ryan Nadelson, MD | Physician
    • Civil discourse as a leadership competency: the case for curiosity in medicine

      All Levels Leadership | Physician
    • Healing beyond the surface: Why proper chronic wound care matters

      Alvin May, MD | Conditions
    • Why specialist pain clinics and addiction treatment services require strong primary care

      Olumuyiwa Bamgbade, MD | Conditions

MedPage Today Professional

An Everyday Health Property Medpage Today
  • Terms of Use | Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • DMCA Policy
All Content © KevinMD, LLC
Site by Outthink Group

Radiologists on the new mammogram study. Who’s right?
5 comments

Comments are moderated before they are published. Please read the comment policy.

Loading Comments...