Winnipeg Free Press - PRINT EDITION

Why I won't get a mammogram

  • Print

A few days after my 40th birthday, I had a routine appointment with my gynecologist. As she turned to leave the exam room, she handed me a slip of paper without saying a word. It was a prescription for a mammogram.

"Wait -- you're not going to discuss this with me?" I asked.

"I am discussing it. I'm telling you to get a mammogram," she replied. When I asked her why, she told me because it could save my life.

What she neglected to tell me is that a mammogram was, in my case, more likely to hurt than help me. Few doctors take the time to mention the risks of mammography -- especially, the danger of overdiagnosis -- that a mammogram might lead a patient to get needled, sliced, zapped with radiation and possibly treated with tamoxifen, a drug that increases the risk of uterine cancer, for a breast lesion that wasn't life-threatening in the first place.

Most people believe breast cancer is inevitably a progressive disease that will kill you if you don't remove it in time. According to this idea, which I call the relentless-progression model, every big cancer is harmful, every small one is less so and every cancer is curable if only you catch it in time. It's an appealing, intuitive idea -- except a growing body of research suggests it's wrong.

Scientists now know breast cancers can behave in different ways. The disease falls into three general behavioural categories, according to Barnett Kramer, director of the National Cancer Institute's division of cancer prevention. Kramer refers to the three types as turtles, birds and bears.

Turtles are cancers that progress so slowly they will never metastasize or harm you. Finding these cancers won't save your life, because they never endangered it in the first place, Kramer says. Birds, on the other hand, are extremely aggressive cancers that are programmed to become deadly. These cancers aren't helped by mammography either, because they spread before they can be detected on a mammogram.

It's only the bears whose future is altered by mammography, Kramer says. Bears may eventually kill you if they're not treated, but they spread slowly enough that a mammogram can detect them in time to make a difference.

Here's the problem: At the moment, we don't have a reliable way to distinguish turtles, birds and bears. While scientists are working to find genetic markers that predict how a cancer will behave, right now the only way to know which way a cancer will act is to wait and see what it does. This means if a mammogram finds a breast cancer, the safest course of action is to assume it's a bear. This inevitably leads to some women with turtles and birds receiving treatment that doesn't help.

Those with turtles end up getting treated for cancers that were never destined to cause any harm. Women who have such cancers are grateful because they believe their lives have been saved. Their doctors and radiologists become even more convinced mammography saves lives. In fact, these women are victims of overdiagnosis.

A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2012 calculated that one-third of newly diagnosed cases of breast cancer are turtles. The study's author, H. Gilbert Welch, a professor of medicine at the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, estimates more than a million American women have been treated for an early-stage breast cancer that would never have hurt them.

For bears, mammograms make a difference, which is why they are recommended every two years for women ages 50 to 74. According to the National Cancer Institute, having regular mammograms every year for a decade reduces the typical woman's risk of dying from breast cancer by about one per cent.

But at my age and with my family history (which includes two aunts with the disease), the National Cancer Institute's risk calculator suggests that my chance of developing invasive breast cancer over the next five years is 0.7 per cent, which is the average risk for a woman of my age. The tool also calculates that I have an 89 per cent probability of remaining free of breast cancer from now until age 90. Those are odds I can live with.

Last year, I asked Welch to calculate a woman's risk of dying from breast cancer with and without mammography. His numbers showed the risk for a 50-year-old woman who had no mammograms over the next 10 years is reassuringly low: between 0.39 and 0.48 per cent over the next 10 years. Having an annual mammogram during those 10 years only reduces that number by a sliver: to 0.34 to 0.37 per cent.

"This is a choice, not a public health imperative," Welch says.

Recent figures show 1,900 women ages 40 to 49 must be screened with an annual mammogram for 10 years to save a single life. During that time, the other 1,899 will gain no benefit from screening but will be subjected to 1,330 false alarms, 665 breast biopsies and eight breast-cancer diagnoses that do not change the course of the disease.

This means my chances of being harmed by a mammogram are far greater than my likelihood of being helped.

I realize that by opting out of mammography, I'll miss the very modest chance that such a scan would save my life. But I'm OK with that. If I feel a lump or another symptom, I'll get checked out. This is how breast cancers were detected before mammography, and even women who undergo yearly mammography may still find a cancer as a lump in between mammograms. But until then, I'll trust that feeling healthy means that I am.

-- Washington Post

Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition October 13, 2013 A2

Fact Check

Fact Check

Have you found an error, or know of something we’ve missed in one of our stories?
Please use the form below and let us know.

* Required
  • Please post the headline of the story or the title of the video with the error.

  • Please post exactly what was wrong with the story.

  • Please indicate your source for the correct information.

  • Yes

    No

  • This will only be used to contact you if we have a question about your submission, it will not be used to identify you or be published.

  • Cancel

Having problems with the form?

Contact Us Directly
  • Print

You can comment on most stories on winnipegfreepress.com. You can also agree or disagree with other comments. All you need to do is be a Winnipeg Free Press print or e-edition subscriber to join the conversation and give your feedback.

You can comment on most stories on winnipegfreepress.com. You can also agree or disagree with other comments. All you need to do is be a Winnipeg Free Press print or e-edition subscriber to join the conversation and give your feedback.

Have Your Say

New to commenting? Check out our Frequently Asked Questions.

Have Your Say

Comments are open to Winnipeg Free Press print or e-edition subscribers only. why?

Have Your Say

Comments are open to Winnipeg Free Press Subscribers only. why?

The Winnipeg Free Press does not necessarily endorse any of the views posted. By submitting your comment, you agree to our Terms and Conditions. These terms were revised effective April 16, 2010.

letters

Make text: Larger | Smaller

LATEST VIDEO

Jets This Week: Predicting the line-ups

View more like this

Photo Store Gallery

  • Marc Gallant/Winnipeg Free Press. Gardening Column- Assiniboine Park English Garden. July 19, 2002.
  • MIKE APORIUS/WINNIPEG FREE PRESS BUSINESS - cow on farm owned by cattle farmer Lloyd Buchanan near Argyle Wednesday afternoon -see Larry Kusch's story  January 04/2006

View More Gallery Photos

Poll

Are you worried Ebola might make its way to Canada?

View Results

View Related Story

Ads by Google