A well-done analysis in the BMJ this week calls into question previous research that has been used to tout mammography as an effective tool for lowering breast cancer mortality in Denmark. That previous study compared breast cancer death rates in Copenhagen, where women were offered screening mammography in 1991, to areas in Denmark where mammograms were not offered until 17 years later, and concluded that the introduction of mammogram screening resulted in a 25 % reduction in breast cancer mortality in screened areas.
The new study adds an additional county where screening was offered (with a little implication that perhaps the previous researchers should have included this other area, but I’ll stay out of the academic finger pointing) and then reanalyzes the data.
The researchers found that breast cancer deaths declined nationwide during the time period studied, in all areas, regardless if that area was one offering the screening program. Much of this decline occurred in women ages 40-49, who were too young to have been offered screening. This suggests that it is breast cancer treatment rather than screening that should take the credit for most of the mortality declines in Denmark over the time period studied.
The researchers then go on to make this statement-
We believe it is time to question whether screening has delivered the promised effect on breast cancer mortality.
-practically guaranteeing that I’d have to read their paper and comment on it. So I am.
My take
I’m not convinced that this paper makes the point that mammograms are ineffective. The authors themselves argue that the effect size of mammography, estimated at about 15-16% in randomized trials, is too small to be measured in epidimiologic studies. I agree. It is just impossible to control all the confounding factors inherent in an entire population of individuals to tease out the effect of a single intervention over time, particularly when breast cancer treatment was evolving so rapidly over the time period being studied.
I have to admit that I have a hard time believing that, for 17 years, women living outside of Copenhagen never entered that fair city to have a mammogram on their own dollar once they found out that their city-dwelling friends were being offered the test and they weren’t. (The paper used to support the claim doesn’t make the case in my opinion.) I know that Europeans have not bought the whole mammogram thing hook, line and sinker the way we here in the States have, but I don’t think it is as black and white as the Danes would like us to believe. (If you are a Danish woman reading this, feel free to enlighten us…) But that’s just an aside.
Bottom Line
This is an important paper in that it effectively refutes previous conclusions about the Danish mammogram screening program. Unfortunately, I don’t think this study stands on any stronger ground in arguing that mammograms are ineffective. Nothing in this paper rescinds the results of the randomized trials, which the authors themselves state find a mortality reduction of about 15-16% for mammography. In my opinion, their results primarily show us that population based data is nearly impossible to use to make any valid conclusions about mammogram screening – either for or against it.
_________________________________________________
Hat tip to Gary Schwitzer for pointing me to this study
I doubt that the reulsts of this paper or others on the topic of mammography are going to ever draw a conclusion.
I think the only possible conclusion to draw is that the detection techniques for breast cancer need to substantially improve. We need to spend some really good, focused time and money on detection as a part of treatment. We need some really good biological screening techniques (diagnostics that are much better at working with broader ranges of antibodies and proteins) as well as physical imaging techniques that can detect anomolies at the cellular level.
Has detection improved, yes, but it is based on some pretty old technologoes that have just been enhanced. We need new, novel, breakthrough technologies. Time for the engineers and physicists in the world to get to work, not just the docs. (Think out of the box like the Star Trek Tricorder…wouldn't that be useful?
Detection alone won't cure breast cancer, but we have to get to a proactive place with detection rather than reactive.
I don't have the answers, but I really hope that some creative minds are out there working on it…
Peggy,
Sorry, but I don't think this study is well-done at all. I'd send it back to the kitchen.
The main problems are in its design, the lack of a sound cohort for purposes of comparison (urban vs. rural regions of Denmark) and circular reasoning based on the authors' assumption that mammography cannot be effective in reducing BC mortality in women under the age of 55.
I'm on vacation (sort-of), otherwise would write more here and on my own blog.
To each her own view!
With respect,
Elaine
Elaine – Actually, I was trying to be nice by blaming the inherent difficulaties with this sort of research. The myriad assumptions one must make to even begin to make conclusions makes it all fairly useless, which I think I was clear about in the last paragraph. I don't think either study stands on strong enough ground to say much of anything.
Hey there,
We have been reading the articles on your website http://theblogthatatemanhattan.blogspot.com/
and are very impressed with the quality of your information.
We have a team of copywriters who specialize in writing articles on various topics and would like to write an original article for you to use on your website – this article will not be used anywhere else on the Internet.
In exchange all we ask is that we can have one or two links within the body of the article back to one of our sites.
If you are interested in having us write an article for your website please just let me know and we would be more than happy to have one written for you within two weeks.
Kind regards,
Papia
I agree with you that it seems more likely that effective breast cancer treatments, not screening, is what they're measuring.
Isn't this 1990s time period also the time when hormonal treatments like tamoxifen became affordable for women with earlier stage disease to receive? Who is to say that the declines don't reflect newer drugs?
I'm not a Danish woman, but a man living in Denmark, so I know something about the Danish health care system.
You would not have found a Danish rural woman using their own croners to have a mammograph while visiting Copenhagen, as that was simply not possible. Private cliniques (as understood in US) started to appear only some years ago, and even now they don't do mammographs (or so I've understood).
The Danish healthcare system is completly free of charge (except dentist and medicines). Mammography -type of examinations are carried on the county's central hospital as many other examinations.
/PT