For several decades, women have been told that regularly scheduled mammograms between the ages of 50 and 69 can help detect breast cancer early and save lives. In 2001, however, these recommendations were questioned because of a study conducted by two Danish scientists that concluded that using mammograms to screen for breast cancer did not save lives. ^{1, 2} One of those scientists has continued to publish articles questioning the benefits of mammogram screening for breast cancer and arguing that women are not sufficiently warned about the negative effects of screening. ^{3, 4} As a result of the media attention to those concerns, some women are wondering whether they should undergo regularly scheduled mammograms. While the Danish researchers have highlighted some important issues, we say the answer to "Should women undergo mammograms?" is YES.

First, it is important to know what evidence there is that mammograms save lives. Six large clinical studies performed by researchers over several decades, incorporating data from hundreds of thousands of women in three countries, have shown that using mammograms to screen for breast cancer helps to prevent deaths from breast cancer-with decreases in the number of breast cancer deaths ranging from 13% to 45%.^{5 - 10} Only one large study, performed in Canada, showed no difference in the number of breast cancer deaths with the use of mammograms.^{11, 13} Some scientists have criticized the design of the Canadian study because it compared mammography plus a physical examination by a doctor to physical examinations alone. This study design would tend to dilute the benefits of mammography since physical exams and mammograms will detect some of the same cancers.¹⁴ However, numerous studies show that regularly scheduled mammograms help to catch breast cancer in earlier stages, when the chances of a cure are much better and when treatment might require less extensive surgery that conserves the breast.¹⁵ That last point is important, because even if the Danish study were correct and mammograms do not save lives compared to physical exams, earlier detection combined with less extensive surgery would be a significant quality-of-life benefit.¹⁶

The bottom line is that either mammograms or physical exams will help detect breast cancer, but mammograms can detect much smaller, earlier cancers, and many women have mammograms more often than they would have physical exams. Overall, research indicates that the benefits of mammography generally outweigh the risks, as long as mammograms are performed in accordance with federal regulations (as outlined under the Mammography Quality Standards Act ¹⁷).

What kind of a study did the Danish researchers conduct to come up with results so different from six out of seven clinical studies? For their 2001 study, Ole Olsen and Peter Gotzsche performed what is known as a meta-analysis. This type of study does not produce any new data, but instead reanalyzes previously published data-in this case, data from the seven large clinical studies already mentioned above. Meta-analyses have become increasingly popular, in part because they are inexpensive and relatively easy to perform: all that is needed are paper copies of previously published studies, a computer, and software. However, performing a meta-analysis also requires many subjective decisions by the scientists that can bias the results. For example, many researchers disagree with the decision by Olsen and Gotzsche to label certain studies "unreliable" because of small differences in average age between the groups of women receiving and not receiving mammograms.^{18, 19} Those researchers argue that differences of a few months in average age between patient groups are not relevant in judging the validity of a study. As you can see, it is very possible for two different teams of researchers performing a meta-analysis of the same data to reach completely different conclusions.

In a 2009 article, Gotzsche and his colleagues propose revising patient information materials about mammography screening to make the risks clearer to women. ⁴ He again emphasizes that the risks outweigh the benefits because mammography screening results in "overdiagnosis" and "overtreatment." False positives cause emotional distress and may result in additional unnecessary exposure to radiation. In addition, women with non-invasive breast conditions, such as Ductal Carcinoma in Situ (DCIS), may undergo medically unnecessary mastectomies. He concludes that instead of decreasing mastectomies, breast cancer screening with mammography leads to more mastectomies.

If six out of seven large-scale clinical studies show that mammography screening saves lives, could Gotzsche be correct that the risks outweigh the benefits? His articles have received a great deal of attention because they were published in two prestigious British medical journals: The Lancet and the British Medical Journal. Publication in such journals tends to lend weight to a scientific report, but that does not guarantee the quality or true importance of the work. In the case of the meta-analysis, some journalists could not critically evaluate the results from this type of study. Most journalists, including those who report on health issues, are not scientists and do not have extensive medical research experience. That may explain why the news media overemphasized the importance of the Danish meta-analysis, causing concerns among thousands of patients around the world.

How Overtreatment Affects the Risk to Benefit Ratio

Although the importance of the Danish meta-analysis may have been overemphasized, the authors did raise very important potential problems with breast cancer screening using mammograms: unnecessary biopsies or overaggressive treatment.^{1, 2} The use of mammograms to screen for breast cancer does result in more biopsies for lesions that look suspicious on mammograms but are not cancer. However, better training of radiologists and improved technology could reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies.²¹ Overly aggressive treatment is a well-documented problem, and not only because of mammograms. Many breast cancer patients undergo mastectomies when they are eligible for less extensive breast-conserving surgery.^{20, 22, 23} Women who have pre-cancerous conditions are often urged to have surgery even when experts believe "watchful waiting" is the more appropriate choice. ²⁴ It is important for patients to carefully discuss diagnostic and treatment options with their physicians. A second opinion is always a wise option, especially if any type of surgery is recommended.

A final important issue is that at the same time that mammograms improve the chances of early diagnosis, they also expose women to radiation, which certainly can increase the risk of getting breast cancer. For this reason, it makes sense to avoid unnecessary mammography, rather than assume that more mammograms are better than fewer. Women should not undergo mammograms more often than is necessary, and they should make sure that their exposure to radiation from mammography is as low as possible.

When considering whether the benefits of mammography outweigh the risks, it is important to weigh the risks and benefits of mammography as a technology separately from the risks of overtreatment. Overtreatment can be reduced if physicians are more cautious in their treatment recommendations and do a better job of communicating with their patients.

Should women younger than 50 and older than 69 get mammograms?

The risks and benefits of mammography vary depending on a woman's age. Prior to 2002, screening mammograms were not recommended for women under 50 because cancer is less common in that age group, and mammograms are less accurate for younger women because their breast tissue tends to be denser. Screening mammography was not recommended for women over 69 either, because the costs appeared to outweigh the benefits: older women tend to face many life-threatening illnesses other than breast cancer.

Since the publication of the Danish study in 2001, there have been advances in screening technology-particularly digital mammography. The Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial showed that digital mammography is more accurate at detecting cancer in women under 50, women with dense breasts, and women who are pre- or perimenopausal (meaning that their last period was within 12 months of the mammogram).²⁵ Because digital images can be enlarged, "cleaned up," and manipulated more easily, the radiologist may be able to evaluate the breast without taking as many pictures, which means the patient is exposed to less radiation. This is particularly important for younger patients who potentially will have many more mammograms in the course of their lives.

In 2002, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued new mammography screening recommendations, broadening the age range beyond women 50-69, ²⁶ even though 50-69 is still the age group for which the evidence of benefits and reduced mortality is greatest. The newer guidelines recommend that women 40 and older undergo a mammogram every 1-2 years. The USPSTF made this change based on evidence that screening women 40 and older could possibly reduce breast cancer deaths by 20-25% over a ten-year period; however, they also point out that on average, the risks and benefits of screening mammography between the ages of 40-49 are relatively even. For that reason, the American College of Physicians disagrees with the USPSTF and encourages a more individualized approach to determining whether a woman's risk of cancer between the ages of 40-49 justifies regular mammograms. ²⁷

Since the risk of developing breast cancer increases with age, it makes sense that screening guidelines have been extended to women 70 years of age and older. On the other hand, older women who are frail, have dementia, or are battling debilitating or life-threatening illnesses may be traumatized by or unable to survive breast cancer treatment. For these women, regular mammogram screening may not be useful because diagnosis or treatment could be more harmful than beneficial. A systematic review done for the USPSTF on the cost effectiveness of screening women over 65 using biennial mammograms found that each year of life saved for older women (up to 75 or 80 years of age) costs between $34,000 to $88,000, as compared with ending screening at 65. ²⁸ The cost per year of life saved increases with a woman's age. A Dutch researcher reported at the European Breast Cancer Conference in 2008 that by extending mammographic screening to women aged 70 to 75, the Netherlands saw a decline five years later in breast cancer deaths among women 75 to 79.²⁹

At this point, there is a general consensus supporting regular screening with mammography for women 50 and older, but some debate still exists as to whether women 40 to 49 should routinely be screened. The associated risks of screening-false positives, unnecessary anxiety, biopsies, and exposure to radiation-outweigh the benefits for some women, but for others the risk of cancer is great enough to override those risks. Younger women who are at a higher risk for breast cancer due to family history or other factors are advised to be screened using digital mammography, since traditional (film screen) mammograms are less accurate for this younger age group. Digital mammography, however, is far more expensive than regular mammography, is less widely available, and is less appropriate for women with large breasts, who may need several additional exposures to get an equivalent image.

An alternative to mammograms is magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Breast MRIs are, on average, more than 10 times as expensive as mammograms, but they are more accurate at detecting breast cancer in high risk women and do not expose patients to radiation. Research suggests that they may be an especially good option for young women who carry the BRCA1 or BRCA 2 gene mutation, which puts them at very high risk for breast cancer. For women under 35 years of age with BRCA1 or BRCA2, the harms of annual mammograms outweigh the benefits.³⁰ MRIs show great promise but because of the expense and high number of false positives, they are not likely to be used for regular screening anytime soon, except among those women at greatest risk. According to a 2004 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, "…MRI-based screening is likely to become the cornerstone of breast cancer surveillance for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, but it is necessary to demonstrate that this surveillance tool lowers breast cancer mortality before it can be recommended for general use." ³¹

The Danish study stirred controversy nearly a decade ago and Dr. Gotzsche continues to be highly critical of mammography screening, but scientific evidence still supports the use of mammograms every 1-2 years for women ages 50 and over. Similarly, there is widespread agreement that women younger than 50 who are at a higher risk of breast cancer should be screened regularly, but the type and frequency of the screening must be left to the patient and provider to decide. For women between the ages of 40-49 who are not at high risk, the benefits and risks of mammogram screening are close to even, which is why there are differences of opinion among health care providers. On average, for women over 50, regular mammograms contribute to early detection, which can translate into less aggressive treatment and fewer deaths from breast cancer.

References:

1. Gotzsche PC, Olsen O. Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable? Lancet. Jan 8 2000;355(9198):129-134.
2. Olsen O, Gotzsche PC. Cochrane Review on Screening for Breast Cancer with Mammography. Lancet. 2001;358:1340-1342.
3. Jorgensen KJ, Gotzsche PC. Content of invitations to publicly funded screening mammography. BMJ 2006;332:538-41.
4. Gotzsche PC, Hartling OJ, Nielsen M, Brodersen J, Jorgensen KJ. Breast screening: the facts-or maybe not. BMJ 2009;338:b86.
5. Andersson I, Janzon L. Reduced breast cancer mortality in women under age 50: updated results from the Malmo Mammographic Screening Program. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1997(22):63-67.
6. Alexander FE, Anderson TJ, Brown HK, et al. 14 years of follow-up from the Edinburgh randomised trial of breast-cancer screening. Lancet. Jun 5 1999;353(9168):1903-1908.
7. Bjurstam N, Bjorneld L, Duffy SW, et al. The Gothenburg breast screening trial: first results on mortality, incidence, and mode of detection for women ages 39-49 years at randomization. Cancer. Dec 1 1997;80(11):2091-2099.
8. Chu KC, Smart CR, Tarone RE. Analysis of breast cancer mortality and stage distribution by age for the Health Insurance Plan clinical trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. Sep 21 1988;80(14):1125-1132.
9. Frisell J, Lidbrink E, Hellstrom L, Rutqvist LE. Followup after 11 years--update of mortality results in the Stockholm mammographic screening trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. Sep 1997;45(3):263-270.
10. Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Chen HH, et al. Efficacy of breast cancer screening by age. New results from the Swedish Two-County Trial. Cancer. May 15 1995;75(10):2507-2517.
11. Miller AB, To T, Baines CJ, Wall C. The Canadian National Breast Screening Study: update on breast cancer mortality. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1997(22):37-41.
12.Miller AB, Baines CJ, To T, Wall C. Canadian National Breast Screening Study: 2. Breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 50 to 59 years. Cmaj. Nov 15 1992;147(10):1477-1488.
13. Miller AB, Baines CJ, To T, Wall C. Canadian National Breast Screening Study: 1. Breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 40 to 49 years. Cmaj. Nov 15 1992;147(10):1459-1476.
14. Law M, Hackshaw A, Wald N. Screening mammography re-evaluated. Lancet. Feb 26 2000;355(9205):749-750; discussion 752.
15. Solin LJ, Legorreta A, Schultz DJ, Zatz S, Goodman RL. The importance of mammographic screening relative to the treatment of women with carcinoma of the breast. Arch Intern Med. Apr 11 1994;154(7):745-752.
16. Lee JH, Zuckerman D. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Lancet. Dec 22-29 2001;358(9299):2164-2165.
17. Monsees BS. The Mammography Quality Standards Act. An overview of the regulations and guidance. Radiol Clin North Am. Jul 2000;38(4):759-772.
18. Duffy SW, Tabar L. Screening mammography re-evaluated. Lancet. Feb 26 2000;355(9205):747-748; discussion 752.
19. Hayes C, Fitzpatrick P, Daly L, Buttimer J. Screening mammography re-evaluated. Lancet. Feb 26 2000;355(9205):749; discussion 752.
20. Zuckerman DM. The need to improve informed consent for breast cancer patients. J Am Med Womens Assoc. Fall 2000;55(5):285-289.
21. Lehman CD, Miller L, Rutter CM, Tsu V. Effect of training with the American College of Radiology breast imaging reporting and data system lexicon on mammographic interpretation skills in developing countries. Acad Radiol. Jul 2001;8(7):647-650.
22. Dolan JT, Granchi TS. Low rate of breast conservation surgery in large urban hospital serving the medically indigent. Am J Surg. Dec 1998;176(6):520-524.
23. Kotwall CA, Covington DL, Rutledge R, Churchill MP, Meyer AA. Patient, hospital, and surgeon factors associated with breast conservation surgery. A statewide analysis in North Carolina. Ann Surg. Oct 1996;224(4):419-426; discussion 426-419.
24. National Center for Policy Research for Women & Families. Improving Information About Treatment Options for Women with Stage Zero Breast Cancer. Proceedings of September 2003 National Meeting. http://www.center4research.org/pdf/dcis-lcis_10-04.pdf
25. Acharyya S, Bassett L, Baum JK, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. New England Journal of Medicine. Oct 2005;353:1773-1783.
26. Screening for breast cancer. Feb 2002. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Web site: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/3rduspstf/breastcancer/brcanwh.htm
27. Qaseem A, Snow V, Sherif, K, Aronson, M, Weiss KB, Owens DK, for the Clinical Assessment Subcommittee of the American College of Physicians. Screening Mammography for Women 40 to 49 Years of Age: A Clinical Practice Guideline from the American College of Physicians. Annals of Internal Medicine. April 2007;146 (7):511-515.
28. Atkkins D, Hoerger T, Mandelblatt J, Saha S, Siu AL, Teutsch S et al. The cost effectiveness of screen mammography beyond age 65 years, A Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Annals of Internal Medicine. Nov 2003;139(10):835-842.
29. Fracheboud, J et al. Mammograms benefit women up to the age of 75 and 3 yearly screening intervals are best. (2008). Paper presented at the European Breast Cancer Conference, Berlin April 18, 2008.
30. Berrington de Gonzalez A, Berg CD, Robson M, Visvanathan K. Estimated risk of radiation-induced breast cancer from mammographic screening for young BRCA mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst. Feb 2009;101(3):205-209.
31. Causer PA, Cutrara MR, DeBoer G, Hill KA, Jong RA, Meschino WS, Messner SJ, Narod SA, Piron CA, Plewes DB, Warner E, Yaffe MJ, Zubovits JT. Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination. JAMA,2004; 292(11):1317-1325.