-Caveat Lector-

From
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/11/health/11MAMM.html?ex=1014094800&en=
4099b6b16703b02d&ei=5038&partner=ASAHI

}}}>Begin
February 11, 2002

X-Ray Vision in Hindsight: Science, Politics and the Mammogram

By GINA KOLATA and MICHAEL MOSS

or decades, it was an article of medical faith: Get a mammogram; it
could save your life.

Now, seemingly overnight, that faith has been shaken. The mammogram —
that yearly ritual for millions of American women — has become the
focus of a bitter and unusually public scientific dispute that is
being fought in the pages of medical journals and the columns of
daily newspapers. Scientists, policy makers and politicians have
scheduled meetings and Congressional hearings.

In the end, though, there is not likely to be a quick answer to the
central question of whether researchers were right when they said
that screening healthy women reduces death from breast cancer or, to
put it another way, whether women should still get that annual
mammogram.

"What a mess, what a complete mess," said Cindy Pearson, executive director of the 
Women's National Health Network, an advocacy group that has been flooded in recent 
days with phone calls from anxious women. "They want to
 know what is all this based on, is there some sort of sneaky, behind-the-scenes thing 
going on?"

How that mess came to be is a story of science and politics and the business of 
medicine, and a war on cancer that seized upon mammography as a central weapon. It 
also is a story of the way science struggles toward an eve
r evolving "truth."

The mammogram has always been a modest weapon, with benefits that women must weigh 
against possible risks. It is a screening tool that misses some tumors. At most, 
studies have found, it can cut the breast- cancer death r
ate by 30 percent.

Even when mammograms do "work," what they find does not always turn out to be cancer. 
The cancer they find may be growing so slowly that it would never threaten a woman's 
life. The result can be surgery, radiation and che
motherapy that is not medically necessary.

Over the years, scientists and statisticians have quietly debated the merits of 
mammography. Most of the public debate, though, has focused on its effectiveness for 
women in their 40's. That was already in considerable do
ubt when the larger issue broke open last fall with the publication of a study by a 
pair of researchers based in Denmark. They argued that the clinical trials most often 
cited to support mammogram recommendations were too
 flawed to be reliable. Last month, an influential but independent panel of experts at 
the National Cancer Institute agreed and said it could no longer make a recommendation 
about whether women should be screened.

"These are huge issues," said Dr. Barnett Kramer, chairman of the panel and associate 
director of disease prevention at the National Institutes of Health. "They shake my 
confidence."

For its part, the cancer institute says that after reviewing the matter, it concluded 
that the new analysis did not refute evidence that mammography works, and that it is 
standing by its recommendation that women 40 and o
lder be screened.

Many of those who did the original trials are vigorously defending their work. While 
there are flaws in the studies, they say, the Danish analysis exaggerated their 
significance and misinterpreted facts.

A number of experts agree.

"I think the trials have imperfections," said Dr. Steven Woolf, a member of the United 
States Preventive Services Task Force, a panel that reviews scientific evidence about 
disease prevention. "But the issue is whether th
ey invalidate the studies. My own view is that they do not rise to that level."

Since a new trial would require tens of thousands of women and a decade for results, 
some scientists are talking about digging deeper and more carefully into the old ones.

Now, mammography supporters, led by the American Cancer Society, worry that the 
uncertainty will weaken the government's resolve. They say mammography is a leading 
reason that the breast-cancer death rate has been droppin
g for the last decade.

Others, including those skeptical of mammography, ask whether the decline is a result 
of better treatments, especially the drug tamoxifen. For them, the furor is an 
opportunity to turn the focus of the war against breast
cancer toward better treatment and the search for a cure.

A leading skeptic is Dr. Donald Berry, a medical statistician at the M. D. Anderson 
Cancer Center in Houston, where techniques were developed in the 1950's that spread 
mammography throughout the nation. Dr. Berry is a mem
ber of the federal advisory panel that is backing away from its support of mammography.

"Breast people here think I'm doing a disservice to women, and I think they are doing 
a disservice to women," Dr. Berry says. "Who's right?"

A Eureka Moment

One evening in late 1970, Sam Shapiro took his research team to a Swiss restaurant in 
Manhattan, where he broke the news that transformed the medical and political approach 
to breast cancer.

Dr. Philip Strax, a radiologist who had begun impressing surgeons by finding tumors 
before they could feel a lump, was at the table. To see if the mammograms really 
worked, Mr. Shapiro, the research director at Health Ins
urance Plan of Greater New York, had begun a scientific inquiry called a randomized 
trial. He divided women, ages 40 to 64, into two groups, and gave mammograms to just 
one.

The study had paid off, Mr. Shapiro told his colleagues that evening. In the first 
seven years of the study, 81 of 31,000 women who had mammograms died of breast cancer, 
compared with 124 of 31,000 who were not screened,
a difference in the breast cancer death rate of a little more than 30 percent.

"It was thrilling," recalls Dr. Raymond Fink, who was in charge of recruiting women 
for the study. It was, he adds, "one of those movie moments," like the scene in "The 
Story of Louis Pasteur" when Paul Muni says, "I foun
d the germ!"

Mammograms took off.

Before long, the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society and other 
organizations issued guidelines telling women to have mammograms starting at age 40. 
The federal government advocated the breast X-ray like
 no other medical procedure. It pushed states to promote its use, compelled insurance 
companies to pay the bills and rode herd on the radiologists who did mammograms to 
ensure that they did a good job. Now, an estimated 3
0 million women are having annual mammograms, and many are having additional tests, 
like sonograms, when findings are suspicious. That leads to annual costs of more than 
$3 billion, said Dr. Martin L. Brown, an economist
at the National Cancer Institute.

A Question of Age

>From the start, there was concern among scientists that mammograms did not work as 
>well for women in their 40's, whose denser breasts make tumors harder to spot and who 
>are much less likely than older women to have breast
 cancer in the first place. To help resolve the question, some urged the cancer 
institute to halt its promotion of mammograms for these younger women until it did 
another scientific trial. Instead, in what became a string
 of flip-flops, the agency in 1977 merely stopped recommending mammograms for women in 
their 40's.

It reversed course in the late 1980's, citing new data that also helped persuade the 
American Cancer Society and other groups to promote screening for younger women.

Then in 1993, still more findings led the institute to abandon the screening 
recommendation for women in their 40's.

Each move was hotly debated, and the issue festered in scientific circles until 1997, 
when the agency's new director, Dr. Richard Klausner, asked the National Institutes of 
Health to convene a new panel.

Dr. Leslie R. Laufman, an Ohio cancer specialist, said that before joining the panel, 
she had never really questioned the evidence about mammograms. At 49, she said, she 
had been having the screening test herself. "I was
walking the walk and talking the talk," she said.

But after spending four months reading more than 100 scientific papers and then 
hearing 32 presentations in a two-day meeting, she and others concluded that women in 
their 40's should not be told to get screened, and she
made a personal decision not have the test herself.

The reason was twofold, the panel said. First, the evidence that mammograms helped was 
tenuous. Second, there were risks in getting screened.

Over the years, scientists have learned that not all breast cancer acts alike. Some 
tumors grow fast, others slowly. Furthermore, nearly one-fifth of the 230,000 or so 
cases of breast cancer being found every year are a c
ondition called ductal carcinoma in situ, or D.C.I.S.

Mammograms are especially good at finding D.C.I.S. But the problem is that many if not 
most of these growths — the science on this question is weak — might never spread. Too 
little is known about breast cancer biology to
tell which ones will pose a threat. Thus, women must run the risk of getting 
unnecessary and dangerous treatment: radiation, chemotherapy, surgery.

The panel presented its findings to an audience packed with radiologists and 
advocates, with boos and hisses punctuating the proceedings. Dr. Klausner created his 
own stir when he said that he disagreed with the panel.

Then Congress got into the act, instructing the cancer institute to recommend that 
women in their 40's have mammograms. The institute reversed course and complied.

"Now, women in their 40's will have clear guidance based on science and action to 
match it," President Bill Clinton had said.

But if the guidance for women in their 40's was murky, the consensus that screening 
worked for women in their 50's and 60's would soon be thrown into doubt.

The Doubters of Denmark

Dr. Peter C. Gotzsche said he had never thought much about mammography until the 
Danish Medical Association asked him to look into it.

As director of the Nordic Cochrane Center in Copenhagen, Dr. Gotzsche belonged to a 
research collective known as the Cochrane Collaboration, which is striving to improve 
the quality of scientific studies and reporting.

When he and his colleague Ole Olsen looked at the seven large clinical trials on 
mammography, they concluded that they were too flawed to support mammography 
recommendations, a finding they reported two years ago in the B
ritish science journal Lancet.

The report drew little public attention. It was their deeper analysis, published in 
October, that touched off a firestorm.

Dr. Gotzsche and Mr. Olsen cited a number of things they said weakened the research, 
including potentially inaccurate records of causes of death, differences in screening 
schedules and possible discrepancies in the health
 histories of women in one of the trials.

In that case, the HIP study in New York, 853 women in the mammography group were 
excluded because of a previous diagnosis of breast cancer; only 336 were dropped from 
the unscreened group. If the two groups really were eq
uivalent to start with, and if an extra 500 or so in the unscreened group should have 
been dropped but were not, that would have been a serious problem, Dr. Gotzsche and 
Mr. Olsen said.

But while some leading medical experts were convinced, many study researchers maintain 
that the Danish critique misinterpreted data, failed to account for statistical 
adjustments that corrected problems, read too much int
o disparities in the numbers and raised alarming questions without offering evidence 
that the results were actually skewed.

For example, says Dr. Anthony Miller, who reviewed deaths in the HIP trial, the 
disparity in excluded women would have been a problem only if anyone with a prior 
history of breast cancer slipped into the final death talli
es, thus distorting the results. Systems were put in place to avoid that, he says.

"They latched onto these small differences, which have ready explanations, and sort of 
magnified them," Dr. Miller said.

Dr. Gotzsche says he stands by the analysis. "There are no objections that make us 
doubt what we have done," he said.

The Danish critique also reported that the screened women had more medical and 
surgical treatments. Treatment is appropriate when it saves lives, but if the death 
rate from breast cancer was no lower in women who had mamm
ograms, that raises questions, the researchers said, of whether the test does more 
harm than good.

Last month, the panel at the National Cancer Institute concurred with the Danish 
report and said it would be as rational for a woman to decide not to have the test as 
to decide to have it. The panel plans to rewrite the a
ssessment that it posts on the cancer institute's Web site.

But others, including scientists who have looked skeptically at mammography over the 
years, say they are not convinced that the mammography trials were so flawed that 
their results should be ignored.

"Over all, I am not persuaded," said Dr. Suzanne Fletcher of Harvard Medical School, 
who was chairwoman of a 1993 federal panel that reviewed mammography, "although I 
thought there were some very important and interesting
 issues that these authors have raised."

Still, Dr. Fletcher and others say they would like to see an independent committee 
have access to and review the original data from all the trials, including patient 
records, so that answers might be obtained to the quest
ions the Danish research raised.

A Tool With Limitations

For women and their doctors, the uncertainty is immensely exasperating, given that 
nearly four decades have passed since researchers began trying to find out if 
mammograms work.

"The bottom line is that if you're still not sure whether it's good or not, it can't 
be that good," says Dr. Vincent Rajkumar, an oncologist at the Mayo Clinic. "It can't 
be phenomenally effective."

Moreover, scientists say that the value of mammography cannot be weighed without 
taking into account the complex biology of breast cancer and the increasing 
effectiveness of treatment.

Some tumors grow so fast that mammograms cannot spot them before they spread — and 
even if they could, the treatment might not be good enough to make any difference. In 
other cases, the treatment is so effective that it d
oes not matter if the tumor is found with a mammogram or somewhat later, when a lump 
can be felt, voiding the whole need for early detection.

"An extreme example of that is testicular cancer," says Dr. Peter Greenwald, director 
of the division of cancer prevention at the National Cancer Institute, "where you can 
cure all stages, so you don't see a mortality ben
efit from early detection."

For now, even as they acknowledge mammography's limitations, many doctors say it is 
the best tool they have. While mammograms might not catch some deadly tumors fast 
enough to make any difference, and they cannot predict
which tumors will prove to be deadly, many doctors believe that early detection does 
help them save some lives.

"I can think of many women where a mammogram was helpful in picking up something 
before it had spread to the lymph nodes," said Dr. Lynn Hartmann, a breast cancer 
specialist at the Mayo Clinic. "So I am not at the point o
f saying we should discard this tool. Until we have a more effective substitute, I 
continue to recommend mammograms, and I continue to have them."

Still, if all the ambiguity is maddening, that is not to say that the debate is 
unwelcome.

When Dr. Gotzsche took the stage at a conference of the National Breast Cancer 
Coalition last May to present his work, he checked the path to the exit, fearing he 
might be run out of the hall. Instead, a third or more of
the audience rose to applaud.

The group's president, Fran Visco, explained, "Many of our members have long felt that 
the data is poor, that we oversell screening to the public, that we don't talk about 
the risks and we don't focus enough attention on
preventing breast cancer."

"They were thrilled to have someone question all that."


Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Privacy Information
End<{{{
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking
new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe
simply because it has been handed down for many generations. Do not
believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do
not believe in anything simply because it is written in Holy Scriptures. Do not
believe in anything merely on the authority of Teachers, elders or wise men.
Believe only after careful observation and analysis, when you find that it
agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all.
Then accept it and live up to it."
The Buddha on Belief, from the Kalama Sutta
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
A merely fallen enemy may rise again, but the reconciled
one is truly vanquished. -Johann Christoph Schiller,
                                     German Writer (1759-1805)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that
prevents us from living freely and nobly. -Bertrand Russell
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Everyone has the right...to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless
of frontiers."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will
teach you to keep your mouth shut."
--- Ernest Hemingway

<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>

http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

Reply via email to