Study: Women in Their 40s Prefer to Delay Mammography Screening When Informed of Real Risks

Posted on: Friday, August 2nd 2024 at 3:00 am

Written By: 

GreenMedInfo Research Group

A groundbreaking study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine has revealed a significant preference among women in their 40s to delay mammography screening when provided with comprehensive information about its benefits and risks. This research challenges recent recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and underscores the importance of informed consent in healthcare decisions.1

Study Overview and Key Findings

The national probability-based U.S. survey, led by Dr. Laura D. Scherer and colleagues, involved 495 women aged 39 to 49 years without a history of breast cancer or known BRCA1/2 gene mutations. Participants were presented with a breast cancer screening decision aid (DA) that provided information about screening benefits and harms, as well as a personalized breast cancer risk estimate.

The study's findings were striking:

1. Before viewing the DA, 27% of participants preferred to delay screening.
2. After viewing the DA, this number increased to 38.5%.
3. There was no significant increase in the number of women never wanting mammography (5.4% before vs. 4.3% after).
4. Women who preferred to delay screening had lower breast cancer risk than those who did not.
5. Information about overdiagnosis was surprising to 37.4% of participants, compared to 27.2% for false-positive results and 22.9% for screening benefits.

These results suggest that when women are provided with comprehensive information about the benefits and risks of mammography screening, a significant portion prefer to delay the procedure, especially those at lower risk for breast cancer. This is a highly significant finding, given that the majority of governmental, medical and media marketing messages emphasize the benefits, without acknowledging the immense risks associated with screening, and many of which can be found on the GreenMedInfo.com x-ray mammography database. 

The Overdiagnosis Dilemma

One of the most critical issues highlighted by this study is the problem of overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening. Overdiagnosis occurs when a screening test detects a cancer that would never have caused symptoms or death during a patient's lifetime. This concept is particularly relevant to breast cancer screening, where the widespread use of mammography has led to a significant increase in the detection of early-stage cancers and precancerous lesions. This explains why the study found "Women who preferred to delay screening had lower breast cancer risk than those who did not." This counterintuitive finding makes sense in light of the problem of overdiagnosis, where screen-detected anomalies are mis-identified and mis-categorized as life-threatening "cancers," as notoriously depicted by the decades long problem with DCIS overdiagonsis and overtreatment which has resulted in well over 1.5 million US women being wrongly treated for "cancer."

A 2012 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine estimated that 31% of all breast cancers diagnosed in the United States represent overdiagnosis.2 This means that for every 2,500 women invited for screening over 10 years, one death from breast cancer will be prevented, but 6 to 10 women will be overdiagnosed and treated unnecessarily.

The consequences of overdiagnosis are far-reaching. Women who are overdiagnosed experience all the negative effects of cancer diagnosis and treatment - including surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy - without any benefit. This not only impacts their physical health but can also have profound psychological and financial consequences.

BRCA Gene Misconceptions

The study also touches on an important misconception regarding the BRCA1/2 genes. While mutations in these genes are associated with an increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer, their significance is often overstated in public discourse. A 2018 study published in The Lancet Oncology found that carrying a BRCA mutation does not significantly affect overall survival for young women diagnosed with breast cancer.3

This finding challenges the prevailing narrative that BRCA mutations are a "death sentence" and highlights the need for more nuanced discussions about genetic risk factors in breast cancer. It also underscores the importance of considering multiple factors, including overall health and lifestyle, when making decisions about breast cancer screening and prevention.

The Hidden Risks of Mammography

The study's findings bring to light the often-overlooked risks associated with mammography screening. These risks, which many women find surprising when presented with the information, include:

1. Radiation exposure: X-ray mammography uses ionizing radiation, which is a known carcinogen. A 2006 study in the British Journal of Radiobiology found that the type of radiation used in mammography may be four to six times more effective in causing mutational damage than previously thought.4
2. False positives: The high rate of false-positive results in mammography can lead to unnecessary anxiety, additional testing, and invasive procedures. A study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine found that after 10 years of annual screening, over 60% of women will receive at least one false-positive result.5
3. Psychological trauma: Research published in the Annals of Family Medicine revealed that women who received false-positive mammography results experienced long-term psychosocial consequences, even three years after being declared cancer-free.6
4. Overtreatment: Many screen-detected cancers, particularly ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), may never progress to invasive cancer. However, current practice often leads to aggressive treatment of these lesions, resulting in unnecessary surgeries and therapies.7
5. Limited effectiveness: Despite increased screening, studies have shown that mammography has not significantly reduced the incidence of advanced breast cancer or improved overall survival rates as much as initially hoped.8

Implications for Current Guidelines

The study's results directly challenge the USPSTF's recent change in recommendations, which now advise biennial screening for all women aged 40 to 49 years. Dr. Scherer and her colleagues suggest that this one-size-fits-all approach may not align with the preferences of a significant portion of women in this age group, particularly those at lower risk of breast cancer.

This research highlights the critical need for a more personalized approach to breast cancer screening. Rather than blanket recommendations based solely on age, screening decisions should take into account individual risk factors, personal preferences, and a thorough understanding of both the benefits and potential harms of mammography.

The Importance of Informed Consent

Perhaps the most significant implication of this study is the crucial role of informed consent in medical decision-making. When women were provided with comprehensive information about the benefits and risks of mammography, many chose to delay screening. This suggests that current practices may not be adequately informing women about the potential downsides of routine mammography.

Healthcare providers have an ethical obligation to ensure that patients are fully informed before making decisions about their health. This includes discussing not only the potential benefits of screening but also the risks of overdiagnosis, false positives, and unnecessary treatment.

Alternative Approaches to Breast Health

As awareness grows about the limitations and potential risks of mammography, there is increasing interest in alternative approaches to breast cancer detection and prevention. These include:

1. Thermography: This non-invasive technique uses infrared imaging to detect temperature variations in breast tissue, potentially identifying areas of concern before they are visible on a mammogram.9
2. Ultrasound: Particularly useful for women with dense breast tissue, ultrasound can provide additional information without the use of radiation.10
3. MRI: For high-risk women, MRI may be a more sensitive screening tool, although it is more expensive and may have a higher rate of false positives.11
4. Lifestyle interventions: Increasing evidence suggests that diet, exercise, and stress reduction can play significant roles in breast cancer prevention.12

Conclusion

The findings of this study underscore the complexity of breast cancer screening decisions and the importance of personalized, informed healthcare. As our understanding of breast cancer biology and the impacts of screening evolves, so too must our approach to prevention and early detection.

Moving forward, it is crucial that women are provided with comprehensive, unbiased information about the benefits and risks of mammography screening. This will enable them to make decisions that align with their individual risk profiles, values, and preferences.

Ultimately, the goal of breast cancer screening should be to maximize benefits while minimizing harm. Clearly, the now 35 year push to drive asymptomatic women en masse to subject themselves to mammograms, has not resulted in the promised outcomes: lowered breast cancer mortality, the most important end point of all. These may only be achieved through focusing on the root cases of breast cancer, which have everything to do with environmental exposures, nutrition, exercise, mind set, and many other lifestyle factors. 

To learn more about natural ways to address breast cancer related issues, visit our database on the subject here.

---

References

1. Scherer LD, et al. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2024.

2. Bleyer A, Welch HG. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(21):1998-2005.

3. Copson ER, et al. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(10):1360-1368.

4. Heyes GJ, et al. Br J Radiol. 2006;79(939):195-200.

5. Hubbard RA, et al. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(8):481-492.

6. Brodersen J, Siersma VD. Ann Fam Med. 2013;11(2):106-115.

7. Esserman LJ, et al. JAMA. 2013;310(8):797-798.

8. Autier P, et al. BMJ. 2011;343:d4411.

9. Gonzalez-Hernandez JG, et al. Biomed Signal Process Control. 2022;72:103334.

10. Berg WA, et al. JAMA. 2008;299(18):2151-2163.

11. Kuhl CK, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(33):8469-8476.

12. Kushi LH, et al. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012;62(1):30-67.