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 aren’t the only ones criticizing the new mammogram study

Geraldine McGinty, MD, MBA
Physician
March 15, 2014
Share
Tweet
Share

Supporters of the most recent paper from the Canadian National Breast Screening Study (CNBSS) falsely contend that only radiologists are criticizing this study. This simply is not true. The Canadian study flaws have been well documented for decades.

Robert E. Tarone at the National Cancer Institute (who isn’t a radiologist) wrote in 1995 that there was a statistically significant excess of advanced cancers that were allocated to the mammography group. The World Health Organization long ago excluded the CNBSS from its analyses of screening mammography’s impact of breast cancer mortality. In a recent interview with CNN, the American Cancer Society echoed similar methodological concerns to those raised by American College of Radiology, Society of Breast imaging and others. Breast cancer groups, such as Breastcancer.org, have criticized this study and warned against following the author’s recommendations. CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta detailed the problems with applying such an old study (conducted in the 1980s) to today and recommended regular mammograms for women ages 40 and older.

The study was not blindly randomized. Women were examined by a doctor or nurse before being assigned to the control group (which did not get mammograms) or the group that was screened.  This means that the doctors or nurses who may have felt a lump in a woman’s breast, and/or lumps in her armpit that might be lymph nodes to which the cancer spread, were faced with the choice of putting a woman that they strongly suspected had cancer into the group that wouldn’t be screened.

Since these women were assigned from open lists, how many local coordinators, out of common decency, acted to save these women’s lives? The coordinators should never have been put in that position. Study authors contend that local staff did not affect randomization. However, the Canadian government inquiry confirmed that a local coordinator was, in fact, fired because study organizers felt that this person had done so. Leaders of the inquiry admit that they did not talk to local coordinators because they felt coordinators “would have been unlikely to admit” affecting randomization. Coordinators were also not permitted to be interviewed by anyone else. So, how is this question somehow settled?

The CNBSS survival figures also support healthy skepticism. The 5-year survival rate in the CNBSS unscreened group was over 90 percent. At that time in Canada, the 5-year survival rate was 75 percent. This kind of discordance again raises questions about randomization. As the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists noted in their press release on the BMJ study, the CNBSS was the only one of many large randomized trials to show no mortality reduction from screening. The CNBSS is also the only one in which organizers knew which women likely had cancers prior to allocation.

The study’s own reference physicist stated in peer-reviewed published studies that the study’s “[mammography] quality was far below the state of the art, even for that time.” Many of the facilities in the trial, which took place in the 1980s, used older mammography machines. Many of the technologists who performed the mammograms across Canada were not properly trained on how to position the woman to include as much breast tissue as possible, so some cancers that could have been detected on the mammogram were missed.

These deficiencies more than explain why only 32 percent of the cancers found in the Canadian study were detected by mammography when most large trials show that mammography detects over 60 percent of cancers and why the cancers found by mammography were more advanced (larger) than those found by mammograms in other trials. Conversely, the false negative rate in the trial (when cancer is present, but missed on a mammogram), was actually worse in the Canadian study than in those done in the 1960s and 1970s.

Criticisms of the CNBSS are well founded and have been well known for 20 years. These factors are why medical professionals worldwide have rejected the trial’s conclusions. Mudslinging doesn’t change the facts. However, it does add to confusion among women regarding when to be screened for breast cancer and may ultimately cost lives.

Geraldine McGinty is chair, commission on economics, American College of Radiology.

Prev

CT in neck trauma: Changing the culture in the ED

March 15, 2014 Kevin 0
…
Next

How safety net ERs can save health care reform

March 15, 2014 Kevin 1
…

Tagged as: Oncology/Hematology, Radiology

Post navigation

< Previous Post
CT in neck trauma: Changing the culture in the ED
Next Post >
How safety net ERs can save health care reform

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

More in Physician

  • Why some doctors age gracefully—and others grow bitter

    Patrick Hudson, MD
  • The hidden incentives driving frivolous malpractice lawsuits

    Howard Smith, MD
  • Mastering medical presentations: Elevating your impact

    Harvey Castro, MD, MBA
  • Marketing as a clinician isn’t about selling. It’s about trust.

    Kara Pepper, MD
  • How doctors took back control from hospital executives

    Gene Uzawa Dorio, MD
  • How art and science fueled one woman’s path to medicine

    Amy Avakian, MD
  • Most Popular

  • Past Week

    • Why Medicaid cuts should alarm every doctor

      Ilan Shapiro, MD | Policy
    • When the diagnosis is personal: What my mother’s Alzheimer’s taught me about healing

      Pearl Jones, MD | Conditions
    • 2 hours to decide my future: How the SOAP residency match traps future doctors

      Nicolette V. S. Sewall, MD, MPH | Education
    • Key strategies for smooth EHR transitions in health care

      Sandra Johnson | Tech
    • Reassessing the impact of CDC’s opioid guidelines on chronic pain care [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • Why removing fluoride from water is a public health disaster

      Steven J. Katz, DDS | Conditions
  • Past 6 Months

    • Why tracking cognitive load could save doctors and patients

      Hiba Fatima Hamid | Education
    • What the world must learn from the life and death of Hind Rajab

      Saba Qaiser, RN | Conditions
    • The silent toll of ICE raids on U.S. patient care

      Carlin Lockwood | Policy
    • “Think twice, heal once”: Why medical decision-making needs a second opinion from your slower brain (and AI)

      Harvey Castro, MD, MBA | Tech
    • Why we fear being forgotten more than death itself

      Patrick Hudson, MD | Physician
    • Bureaucracy over care: How the U.S. health care system lost its way

      Kayvan Haddadan, MD | Physician
  • Recent Posts

    • How the shingles vaccine could help prevent dementia

      Marc Arginteanu, MD | Conditions
    • How to survive a broken health care system without losing yourself [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • Why some doctors age gracefully—and others grow bitter

      Patrick Hudson, MD | Physician
    • Why removing fluoride from water is a public health disaster

      Steven J. Katz, DDS | Conditions
    • What the research really says about infrared saunas

      Khushali Jhaveri, MD | Conditions
    • How the cycle of rage is affecting physicians—and how to break free

      Alexandra M.P. Brito, MD and Jennifer L. Hartwell, 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 6 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

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Most Popular

  • Past Week

    • Why Medicaid cuts should alarm every doctor

      Ilan Shapiro, MD | Policy
    • When the diagnosis is personal: What my mother’s Alzheimer’s taught me about healing

      Pearl Jones, MD | Conditions
    • 2 hours to decide my future: How the SOAP residency match traps future doctors

      Nicolette V. S. Sewall, MD, MPH | Education
    • Key strategies for smooth EHR transitions in health care

      Sandra Johnson | Tech
    • Reassessing the impact of CDC’s opioid guidelines on chronic pain care [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • Why removing fluoride from water is a public health disaster

      Steven J. Katz, DDS | Conditions
  • Past 6 Months

    • Why tracking cognitive load could save doctors and patients

      Hiba Fatima Hamid | Education
    • What the world must learn from the life and death of Hind Rajab

      Saba Qaiser, RN | Conditions
    • The silent toll of ICE raids on U.S. patient care

      Carlin Lockwood | Policy
    • “Think twice, heal once”: Why medical decision-making needs a second opinion from your slower brain (and AI)

      Harvey Castro, MD, MBA | Tech
    • Why we fear being forgotten more than death itself

      Patrick Hudson, MD | Physician
    • Bureaucracy over care: How the U.S. health care system lost its way

      Kayvan Haddadan, MD | Physician
  • Recent Posts

    • How the shingles vaccine could help prevent dementia

      Marc Arginteanu, MD | Conditions
    • How to survive a broken health care system without losing yourself [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • Why some doctors age gracefully—and others grow bitter

      Patrick Hudson, MD | Physician
    • Why removing fluoride from water is a public health disaster

      Steven J. Katz, DDS | Conditions
    • What the research really says about infrared saunas

      Khushali Jhaveri, MD | Conditions
    • How the cycle of rage is affecting physicians—and how to break free

      Alexandra M.P. Brito, MD and Jennifer L. Hartwell, 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 aren’t the only ones criticizing the new mammogram study
6 comments

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

Loading Comments...