Skip to Main Content

Is Mammography The Only And Best Choice?

Mammography Is a Recipe for Net Harm
Written by ACCT  May 06, 2015
Eric J. Topol, MD

The medical community prides itself on evidence to drive important decision-making. But when the evidence is contrary to entrenched medical practice, it has a hard time coming to terms. Such is the case for mammography recommendations. All of the data now available point to significant net harm—far more risk than benefit— for routine mammography. If this were a drug, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would never approve it. Last year, the Swiss Medical Board, after reviewing all of the data, recommended abolishing mammography.[1]

But last week, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued new draft recommendations regarding who should undergo screening and how often. There was no support for routine screening in women younger than 50 or older than 74 years. But the recommendation for women aged 50-74 years is to undergo mammography every 2 years. There has never been a large study of mammography done every 2 years, so the basis for that periodicity of screening is questionable. But there are abundant data for annual screening and they are not at all supportive of continuing this practice.

A systematic assessment based on all of the evidence available from 1960-2014 showed that for 10,000 women in their 50s, who are screened annually over the course of a decade, there are only 5 individuals whose breast cancer deaths are prevented.[2] But there are over 6100 women who have false-positive tests that lead to additional imaging and unnecessary biopsy procedures. This > 60% false-positive rate is an indicator of a remarkably poor test with respect to accuracy, no less the large toll of emotional turmoil that it engenders.

What about all of the biopsies that are performed? A recent study also underscored yet another level of imprecision: the problem of interpreting biopsies by pathologists when there is agreement among three experts about the presence of cancer only 75% of the time.[3] Added to the net harm of mammography is over-diagnosis, which occurs in 20%-30% of women who have an abnormal result but in whom cancer would not be apparent unless the scan was performed.

Nevertheless, these women often undergo surgery and receive chemotherapy or radiation (or a combination of all of these treatments), even though there is little to no impact on prognosis. Such individuals typically believe that their lives have been saved even though the data point against that assertion. A Harvard study published in the current issue of Health Affairs demonstrated that the cost of these false-positive studies and over-diagnosis was approximately $4 billion per year.[4] This is on top of the current US costs of annual mammography of nearly $10 billion.

It is time to reboot how we screen for breast cancer. Until now, the use of mass screening suggests that we are unable to differentiate the risk in any given individual. So instead of a smart approach that uses family history and genetics, we have dumbed it down and treated all women the same. As a result, we have come to rely on a test that is notoriously inaccurate but has become a fixed part of American medical practice since it was introduced almost 50 years ago. With the tens of millions of low-risk women unnecessarily undergoing screening each year, any test would be vulnerable to a high rate of false positives. That applies to higher-resolution scans, too, such as magnetic resonance, digital mammography and ultrasound. Indeed, there is a better path forward.

Why Family History and Genomics Matter

There is strong evidence that family history is critical for defining risk. Beyond family history, we have the ability to sequence the genes known to carry high-risk mutations. Dr Mary-Claire King, who discovered the BRCA1 gene, has advocated that all women age 30 and older should be screened for mutations that carry a high risk for breast and ovarian cancer.[5] She’s right. And at some point, why not add men, who unknowingly can pass along important BRCA mutations to their daughters?

We didn’t have a way to widely implement such a recommendation until this past week when a collaboration, called BRCA Share, was reported between the two largest central lab companies—Laboratory Corporation of America and Quest Diagnostics —as was the announcement of a new genetic testing company called Color Genomics. For $249, Color Genomics is offering, via a saliva sample, sequencing of the BRCA genes along with 17 other genes that carry a high risk for familial cancer. For 1 year of mammography costs in the United States, we could now perform such genetic testing for over 56 million women. The unrelenting plummeting of the cost of sequencing—and a much more expansive approach to the whole genome (instead of just ~20 genes)—is just around the corner.

When she announced her choice to undergo bilateral mastectomy in 2013, Angelina Jolie wrote in an op-ed in The New York Times : “But today it is possible to find out through a blood test whether you are highly susceptible to breast and ovarian cancer, and then take action. Life comes with many challenges. The ones that should not scare us are the ones we can take on and take control of.” Just a couple of years later, the Angelina Effect on heightening awareness and the US Supreme Court decision against Myriad Genetics’ BRCA testing monopoly have introduced exciting opportunities for adopting a new approach. We shouldn’t be scared of it. It doesn’t even require a blood test anymore. We should take it on, study it, and exploit the progress in genomic science to develop an intelligent, evidence-based, and economically attractive precise path forward.

1.Biller-Andorno N, Jüni P. Abolishing mammography screening programs? A view from the Swiss medical board. N Engl J Med. 2014; 370:1965-196. Abstract
2.Elmore JG, Kramer BS. Breast cancer screening toward informed decisions. JAMA. 2014;311:1298-1299. Abstract
3.Elmore JG, Longton GM, Carney PA, et al. Diagnostic concordance among pathologists interpreting breast biopsy specimens. JAMA. 2015;313:1122-1132. Abstract
4.Ong MS, Mandl KD. National expenditure for false-positive mammograms and breast cancer overdiagnoses estimated at $4 billion a year. Health Aff (Millwood). 2015:34;576-583. Abstract
5.King, MC, Levy-Lahad E, Lahad A. Population-based screening for BRCA1 and BRCA2. 2014 Lasker Award. JAMA. 2014;312:1091-1092. Abstract


April 2023 (1)
March 2023 (3)
February 2023 (1)
January 2023 (1)
December 2022 (1)
November 2022 (2)
October 2022 (1)
September 2022 (1)
August 2022 (1)
July 2022 (1)
June 2022 (1)
May 2022 (1)
April 2022 (1)
March 2022 (1)
February 2022 (1)
January 2022 (1)
December 2021 (1)
November 2021 (1)
October 2021 (1)
September 2021 (1)
August 2021 (1)
July 2021 (1)
May 2021 (1)
April 2021 (1)
March 2021 (1)
February 2021 (2)
January 2021 (1)
December 2020 (1)
November 2020 (2)
September 2020 (1)
August 2020 (1)
July 2020 (1)
June 2020 (1)
May 2020 (1)
March 2020 (2)
February 2020 (1)
January 2020 (1)
December 2019 (1)
November 2019 (1)
October 2019 (1)
September 2019 (1)
July 2019 (1)
June 2019 (1)
May 2019 (1)
April 2019 (1)
March 2019 (1)
February 2019 (1)
January 2019 (1)
December 2018 (1)
November 2018 (1)
October 2018 (1)
September 2018 (2)
July 2018 (1)
June 2018 (1)
May 2018 (2)
April 2018 (1)
February 2018 (1)
January 2018 (1)
November 2017 (1)
October 2017 (1)
September 2017 (1)
August 2017 (1)
May 2017 (1)
March 2017 (1)
February 2017 (2)
January 2017 (1)
December 2016 (2)
July 2016 (1)
June 2016 (1)
April 2016 (1)
March 2016 (1)
January 2016 (3)
October 2015 (1)
August 2015 (2)
July 2015 (4)
June 2015 (2)
May 2015 (3)
April 2015 (1)
March 2015 (1)
February 2015 (1)
November 2014 (2)
October 2014 (2)
September 2014 (1)