Skip to main content

Time to debunk the mammography myth

By Gayle Sulik and Bonnie Spanier
March 18, 2014 -- Updated 1245 GMT (2045 HKT)
Gayle Sulik and Bonnie Spanier say the benefits of mammograms are far smaller than early evidence suggested, and the hazards have been largely ignored.
Gayle Sulik and Bonnie Spanier say the benefits of mammograms are far smaller than early evidence suggested, and the hazards have been largely ignored.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Writers: The old mantra of "early detection cures breast cancer and saves lives" is misleading
  • Writers: "Early" detection now means mammography finding microscopic abnormality
  • A large study found screening mammograms did not reduce the number of cancer deaths
  • Writers: Tiny abnormalities treated like full blown cancer and get excessive treatment

Editor's note: Gayle Sulik is a medical sociologist, founder of the Breast Cancer Consortium and author of "Pink Ribbon Blues: How Breast Cancer Culture Undermines Women's Health." Follow her on Twitter: @pinkribbonblues. Bonnie Spanier is a molecular microbiologist, emerita professor at the University at Albany (SUNY) and co-founder of Capital Region Action Against Cancer.

(CNN) -- Recently some friends were discussing whether early detection via screening mammography may not be the key to surviving breast cancer. Several women argued that despite the studies, they believe in mammograms, echoing many women who were treated for a screen-detected breast cancer and are alive to tell the story. Some even support it when screening clearly failed to detect their cancers or prevent the onset of advanced disease.

For decades, belief in some version of "early detection cures breast cancer and saves lives" has shaped our view. In the 1970s, when women like Betty Ford and the late Shirley Temple Black were lifting the veil of secrecy and shame surrounding breast cancer, finding the disease "early" meant being alert to symptoms to find a tumor before it got so large it poisoned the body. In this context, it was logical to try to find tumors before they got to this point.

Gayle Sulik
Gayle Sulik
Bonnie Spanier
Bonnie Spanier

Today "early detection" means something very different. Now, "early" has shifted from feeling a lump to relying on a mammogram to detect a microscopic abnormality. Supporting the narrative that "every breast cancer is curable as long as you catch it in time," the focus shifted to the detection of smaller and smaller suspicious conditions by way of radiographic imaging.

A large Canadian study with 25 years of follow-up reported that annual screening mammograms did not reduce the number of cancer deaths any more than clinical exams and health care among the nearly 90,000 women ages 40 to 59 who took part. In fact, they contributed to harm.

When the study was released, the circling question was not: Was the study relevant, the design rational, the findings contextualized? Some radiologists even said the results were because of outdated equipment or even cheating. But staying within the realm of opinion rather than analysis, the question for many was simply: Do you believe this finding?

Consider DCIS (ductal carcinoma in situ). They can't be found by manual breast exams. They are highly localized and among the tinier suspicious cell clusters and were rarely found before mammogram screening. New cases of DCIS went from 5,000 in 1983 to more than 54,000 today, and most are treated like full-blown cancer, with surgeries, lymph node removal and other therapies.

But the assumption that DCIS was an early expression of life-threatening cancer was inaccurate, so much so that there are efforts to reclassify DCIS as a precancer. What's more, finding smaller abnormalities did not translate to a decline in more advanced disease as would be expected. With a more cautious approach, thousands of women who were told they had breast cancer might have avoided invasive overtreatment. Yet the general belief that finding the smallest abnormalities will prevent breast cancer deaths remains.

Focusing on beliefs -- mammograms always save lives -- primes us to rely on opinions that may not be based on reliable evidence. Presenting those beliefs as facts manipulates our emotions. This persuasive strategy is prevalent in health and medical advertising, celebrity spots, and health news.

Consider these trusted, but misleading, persuaders:

Susan G. Komen for the Cure often treats screening mammography as a sure thing for saving lives. Komen's "Get Screened Now" campaign compared a 98% five-year survival rate for breast cancers "caught early" to a 23% five-year survival rate for those caught late. Being alive today, or for a few years, is not the same as "not dying" from a disease. Among other errors, these misleading statistics mix apples and oranges, in this case stage zero DCIS with the most advanced cancers.

The American Cancer Society argues that despite the limitations of screening, including documented overdiagnosis and overtreatment, women 40 and older should have a mammogram every year and continue to do so for as long as they are in good health.

Ignoring the mounting evidence of the limited value of screening for women of average risk, particularly for women in their 40s, the society (and radiology associations) continue to promote early detection via screening.

Health care delivery systems send false messages too. Advertising the story of a 32-year-old woman -- eight years younger than the earliest recommended age to start screening -- to spread a message that regular mammograms greatly increase survival is misleading. It sells a product, but does not necessarily deliver on the promise.

Indeed, no matter how state-of-the-art the mammography machine, technician, and radiologists are, screening mammograms miss at least 10% of invasive breast cancers -- and the worst ones. After 25 years of follow-up, the Canadian study confirmed its earlier findings that the women who received annual screening mammograms died at similar rates as the women who did not -- and far too many got unnecessary overtreatment. Truth in advertising would fully explain these caveats.

A celebrity on prime time who is being treated for a screen-detected breast cancer publicly announces that a mammogram saved her life. But regardless of when or how a "breast cancer" is identified, it is the inherent qualities of the cancer that matter most with regard to a course of treatment and the probability of a successful outcome. Yet the "I got lucky by catching it early" so "every woman should get a mammogram" message continues to spread like wildfire.

It doesn't stop there -- it is spread in campaigns by the National Football League, Kohl's department store, propane gas trucks with messages on the side, pink lemonade, early detection goody bags. The false narrative propagates in a pink ribbon marketplace.

Belief in untested assumptions is much too common. Think back to the extreme and disfiguring Halsted "radical" mastectomy, which removed the breast, lymph nodes and two major chest muscles. It was standard breast cancer treatment by 1915 and remained so for nearly 100 years.

The surgery was not protocol because it saved lives, as many assumed, but because of Halsted's prestige and certainty. Scrutiny of his studies eventually revealed that Halsted's beliefs about breast cancer lacked evidence to support his claims about treatment, but randomized, controlled trials did not confirm the benefit of alternatives until the 1970s.

Eight randomized, controlled trials of mammography screening have found that the benefits are far smaller than early evidence suggested, and the hazards have been largely ignored.

Let's not wait 100 years to move beyond belief in the unequivocal power of this screening tool. We need to understand its strengths, risks and limitations and allow that understanding to inform our beliefs and our practices.

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.

Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writers.

ADVERTISEMENT
Part of complete coverage on
October 21, 2014 -- Updated 2006 GMT (0406 HKT)
Timothy Stanley says Lewinsky is shamelessly playing the victim in her affair with Bill Clinton, humiliating Hillary Clinton again and aiding her critics
October 21, 2014 -- Updated 0102 GMT (0902 HKT)
Imagine being rescued from modern slavery, only to be charged with a crime, writes John Sutter
October 21, 2014 -- Updated 1600 GMT (0000 HKT)
Tidal flooding used to be a relatively rare occurrence along the East Coast. Not anymore, write Melanie Fitzpatrick and Erika Spanger-Siegfried.
October 21, 2014 -- Updated 1135 GMT (1935 HKT)
Carol Costello says activists, writers, politicians have begun discussing their abortions. But will that new approach make a difference on an old battleground?
October 21, 2014 -- Updated 1312 GMT (2112 HKT)
Sigrid Fry-Revere says the National Organ Transplant Act has caused more Americans to die waiting for an organ than died in both World Wars, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq
October 21, 2014 -- Updated 1851 GMT (0251 HKT)
Crystal Wright says racist remarks like those made by black Republican actress Stacey Dash do nothing to get blacks to join the GOP
October 21, 2014 -- Updated 2207 GMT (0607 HKT)
Mel Robbins says by telling her story, Monica Lewinsky offers a lesson in confronting humiliating mistakes while keeping her head held high
October 20, 2014 -- Updated 1329 GMT (2129 HKT)
Cornell Belcher says the story of the "tea party wave" in 2010 was bogus; it was an election determined by ebbing Democratic turnout
October 20, 2014 -- Updated 2012 GMT (0412 HKT)
Les Abend says pilots want protocols, preparation and checklists for all contingencies; at the moment, controlling a deadly disease is out of their comfort zone
October 20, 2014 -- Updated 0336 GMT (1136 HKT)
David Weinberger says an online controversy that snowballed from a misogynist attack by gamers into a culture war is a preview of the way news is handled in a world of hashtag-fueled scandal
October 20, 2014 -- Updated 1223 GMT (2023 HKT)
Julian Zelizer says Paul Krugman makes some good points in his defense of President Obama but is premature in calling him one of the most successful presidents.
October 20, 2014 -- Updated 0221 GMT (1021 HKT)
Conservatives can't bash and slash government and then suddenly act surprised if government isn't there when we need it, writes Sally Kohn
October 20, 2014 -- Updated 1228 GMT (2028 HKT)
ISIS is looking to take over a good chunk of the Middle East -- if not the entire Muslim world, write Peter Bergen and Emily Schneider.
October 20, 2014 -- Updated 1300 GMT (2100 HKT)
The world's response to Ebola is its own sort of tragedy, writes John Sutter
October 17, 2014 -- Updated 2033 GMT (0433 HKT)
Hidden away in Russian orphanages are thousands of children with disabilities who aren't orphans, whose harmful treatment has long been hidden from public view, writes Andrea Mazzarino
October 18, 2014 -- Updated 1722 GMT (0122 HKT)
When you hear "trick or treat" this year, think "nudge," writes John Bare
October 18, 2014 -- Updated 0442 GMT (1242 HKT)
The more than 200 kidnapped Nigerian schoolgirls have become pawns in a larger drama, writes Richard Joseph.
October 17, 2014 -- Updated 1345 GMT (2145 HKT)
Peggy Drexler said Amal Alamuddin was accused of buying into the patriarchy when she changed her name to Clooney. But that was her choice.
October 16, 2014 -- Updated 2043 GMT (0443 HKT)
Ford Vox says the CDC's Thomas Frieden is a good man with a stellar resume who has shown he lacks the unique talents and vision needed to confront the Ebola crisis
October 18, 2014 -- Updated 0858 GMT (1658 HKT)
How can such a numerically small force as ISIS take control of vast swathes of Syria and Iraq?
October 17, 2014 -- Updated 1342 GMT (2142 HKT)
How big a threat do foreign fighters in Syria and Iraq pose to the West? It's a question that has been much on the mind of policymakers and commentators.
October 17, 2014 -- Updated 1221 GMT (2021 HKT)
More than a quarter-million American women served honorably in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Now they are home, we have an obligation to help them transition back to civilian life.
October 16, 2014 -- Updated 2027 GMT (0427 HKT)
Paul Begala says Rick Scott's deeply weird refusal to begin a debate because rival Charlie Crist had a fan under his podium spells disaster for the Florida governor--delighting Crist
October 16, 2014 -- Updated 0407 GMT (1207 HKT)
The longer we wait to engage on Ebola, the more limited our options will become, says Marco Rubio.
October 15, 2014 -- Updated 1153 GMT (1953 HKT)
Democratic candidates who run from President Obama in red states where he is unpopular are making a big mistake, says Donna Brazile
October 16, 2014 -- Updated 0429 GMT (1229 HKT)
At some 7 billion people, the world can sometimes seem like a crowded place. But if the latest estimates are to be believed, then in less than a century it is going to feel even more so -- about 50% more crowded, says Evan Fraser
October 20, 2014 -- Updated 1653 GMT (0053 HKT)
Paul Callan says the Ebola situation is pointing up the need for better leadership
October 15, 2014 -- Updated 2245 GMT (0645 HKT)
Nurses are the unsung heroes of the Ebola outbreak. Yet, there are troubling signs we're failing them, says John Sutter
October 15, 2014 -- Updated 1700 GMT (0100 HKT)
Dean Obeidallah says it's a mistake to give up a business name you've invested energy in, just because of a new terrorist group
October 15, 2014 -- Updated 2301 GMT (0701 HKT)
Fear of Ebola is contagious, writes Mel Robbins; but it's time to put the disease in perspective
October 14, 2014 -- Updated 1744 GMT (0144 HKT)
Oliver Kershaw says that if Big Tobacco is given monopoly of e-cigarette products, public health will suffer.
October 18, 2014 -- Updated 1335 GMT (2135 HKT)
Stop thinking your job will make you happy.
October 15, 2014 -- Updated 0208 GMT (1008 HKT)
Ruben Navarrette says it's time to deal with another scandal involving the Secret Service — one that leads directly into the White House.
October 14, 2014 -- Updated 1125 GMT (1925 HKT)
Americans who choose to fight for militant groups or support them are young and likely to be active in jihadist social media, says Peter Bergen
October 13, 2014 -- Updated 1303 GMT (2103 HKT)
Stephanie Coontz says 11 years ago only one state allowed same sex marriage. Soon, some 60% of Americans will live where gays can marry. How did attitudes change so quickly?
October 14, 2014 -- Updated 2004 GMT (0404 HKT)
Legalizing assisted suicide seems acceptable when focusing on individuals. But such laws would put many at risk of immense harm, writes Marilyn Golden.
October 13, 2014 -- Updated 1307 GMT (2107 HKT)
Julian Zelizer says the issues are huge, but both parties are wrestling with problems that alienate voters
October 13, 2014 -- Updated 2250 GMT (0650 HKT)
Mel Robbins says the town's school chief was right to cancel the season, but that's just the beginning of what needs to be done
October 11, 2014 -- Updated 1543 GMT (2343 HKT)
He didn't discover that the world was round, David Perry writes. So what did he do?
ADVERTISEMENT