More on mammograms, plus a protest in Maryland
Here is more information on the controversial recommendation against women getting mammograms before age 50. Just to clarify a few points:
This government recommendation is so dangerous because insurance companies will use this to prohibit women under 50 from getting mammograms, even though it's KNOWN that mammograms save lives.
Yes, I am high risk. I carry the BRCA1 mutation. (And yes, that makes me a mutant.) However, this was not known when I got my baseline mammogram.
Because I am a high-risk survivor, I am supposed to get two mammograms and two MRIs a year. My insurance company allows one mammogram a year. This is due to legislation requiring insurance companies to cover mammograms for women age 40 and older. Guess how many screenings I get a year? What would happen if that legislation were to be rescinded?
11,000 women UNDER 40 are diagnosed with breast cancer each year in the US. I was one of those.
70% of women diagnosed with breast cancer have NO risk factors.
My baseline mammogram at 39 saved my life.
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/MED/content/MED_2_1x_American_Cancer_Society_Responds_to_Changes_to_USPSTF_Mammography_Guidelines.asp
“With its new recommendations, the USPSTF is essentially telling women that mammography at age 40 to 49 saves lives; just not enough of them. The task force says screening women in their 40s would reduce their risk of death from breast cancer by 15 percent, just as it does for women in their 50s. But because women in their 40s are at lower risk of the disease than women 50 and above, the USPSTF says the actual number of lives saved is not enough to recommend widespread screening. The most recent data show us that approximately 17 percent of breast cancer deaths occurred in women who were diagnosed in their 40s, and 22 percent occurred in women diagnosed in their 50s. Breast cancer is a serious health problem facing adult women, and mammography is part of our solution beginning at age 40 for average risk women.
http://www.bremfoundation.com/index.htm
There is universal agreement that mammography saves lives. For the past 20 years the DEATH RATE FROM BREAST CANCER HAS DECLINED by 30%, more in younger woman. This decrease in death rate is due largely to the increased use of mammography. With this overwhelmingly compelling data, why then did the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issue new, dangerous recommendations to deny mammography to women in their 40’s, screen woman between the ages of 50 and 74 once every other year and recommend against screening woman above age 74. Their “analysis” did not use any direct scientific data. They chose to ignore modern, compelling clinical trials that demonstrated a 40% reduction in breast cancer deaths and rather based their flawed recommendations on old data and mathematical models. Their analysis is flawed and seriously underestimates the impact of mammography on saving lives.
http://community.livejournal.com/maryland/429255.html
And let’s look at those numbers in terms of larger numbers of women
screened, using the statistical modeling provided by the USPSTF:
Deaths of women averted by screening in their 40s vs. deaths of women
averted by women who start screening in their 50s:
1,000 women 6.1 5.4
10,000 women 61 54
100,000 women 610 540
1,000,000 women 6100 5400
So for every 100,000 women screened in their 40s, as opposed to waiting
till their 50s, 70 more women would live. For every one million women,
700 more women would live.
This government recommendation is so dangerous because insurance companies will use this to prohibit women under 50 from getting mammograms, even though it's KNOWN that mammograms save lives.
Yes, I am high risk. I carry the BRCA1 mutation. (And yes, that makes me a mutant.) However, this was not known when I got my baseline mammogram.
Because I am a high-risk survivor, I am supposed to get two mammograms and two MRIs a year. My insurance company allows one mammogram a year. This is due to legislation requiring insurance companies to cover mammograms for women age 40 and older. Guess how many screenings I get a year? What would happen if that legislation were to be rescinded?
11,000 women UNDER 40 are diagnosed with breast cancer each year in the US. I was one of those.
70% of women diagnosed with breast cancer have NO risk factors.
My baseline mammogram at 39 saved my life.
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/MED/content/MED_2_1x_American_Cancer_Society_Responds_to_Changes_to_USPSTF_Mammography_Guidelines.asp
“With its new recommendations, the USPSTF is essentially telling women that mammography at age 40 to 49 saves lives; just not enough of them. The task force says screening women in their 40s would reduce their risk of death from breast cancer by 15 percent, just as it does for women in their 50s. But because women in their 40s are at lower risk of the disease than women 50 and above, the USPSTF says the actual number of lives saved is not enough to recommend widespread screening. The most recent data show us that approximately 17 percent of breast cancer deaths occurred in women who were diagnosed in their 40s, and 22 percent occurred in women diagnosed in their 50s. Breast cancer is a serious health problem facing adult women, and mammography is part of our solution beginning at age 40 for average risk women.
http://www.bremfoundation.com/index.htm
There is universal agreement that mammography saves lives. For the past 20 years the DEATH RATE FROM BREAST CANCER HAS DECLINED by 30%, more in younger woman. This decrease in death rate is due largely to the increased use of mammography. With this overwhelmingly compelling data, why then did the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issue new, dangerous recommendations to deny mammography to women in their 40’s, screen woman between the ages of 50 and 74 once every other year and recommend against screening woman above age 74. Their “analysis” did not use any direct scientific data. They chose to ignore modern, compelling clinical trials that demonstrated a 40% reduction in breast cancer deaths and rather based their flawed recommendations on old data and mathematical models. Their analysis is flawed and seriously underestimates the impact of mammography on saving lives.
http://community.livejournal.com/maryland/429255.html
And let’s look at those numbers in terms of larger numbers of women
screened, using the statistical modeling provided by the USPSTF:
Deaths of women averted by screening in their 40s vs. deaths of women
averted by women who start screening in their 50s:
1,000 women 6.1 5.4
10,000 women 61 54
100,000 women 610 540
1,000,000 women 6100 5400
So for every 100,000 women screened in their 40s, as opposed to waiting
till their 50s, 70 more women would live. For every one million women,
700 more women would live.