Replies

I saw a discussion of this study on Fox News this morning by Drs Samadi and Rosen. While they said the study was interesting you had to consider that it looked at survival rates not detection rates and that the study was done up to 25 years ago when mammogram technology was not what it is today. They reasoned that it is still better to detect breast cancer as early as possible when the cancers are small and that manual exams cannot detect breast cancer as small as now is possible with the new technology. Dr Rosen made an interesting observation when he has his patients schedule a yearly mammogram they often procrastinate to where it is 18 months before they actually get one done. Scheduling every two years often meant that patients would not get the screening done for several more years.

The five-year survival rates for all forms of breast cancer in the US is 85 per cent. However in the UK with their socialized medicine system five year survival is under 74 per cent. In the UK their socialized medicine system allows mammograms every three years and don't start until age 50 compared to annual mammograms starting at age 40 in the US. If the breast cancer is caught early (stage 1) an American woman has a 97 per cent chance of being alive five years after diagnosis. In Britain with their socialized medicine system, five year survival for stage 1 breast cancer is only 78 per cent.

I fear these studies will be used by Obamacare bean counters to stop annual mammograms by saying see it doesn't make any difference in this large study, but ignore the details and the very high rates of survival and early rates of detection under our current system.