Skip to main content

Time to debunk the mammography myth

By Gayle Sulik and Bonnie Spanier
updated 8:45 AM EDT, Tue March 18, 2014
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
updated 9:29 AM EDT, Mon October 20, 2014
Cornell Belcher says the story of the "tea party wave" in 2010 was bogus; it was an election determined by ebbing Democratic turnout
updated 4:12 PM EDT, Mon October 20, 2014
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
updated 11:36 PM EDT, Sun October 19, 2014
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
updated 8:23 AM EDT, Mon October 20, 2014
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.
updated 10:21 PM EDT, Sun October 19, 2014
Conservatives can't bash and slash government and then suddenly act surprised if government isn't there when we need it, writes Sally Kohn
updated 8:28 AM EDT, Mon October 20, 2014
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.
updated 9:00 AM EDT, Mon October 20, 2014
The world's response to Ebola is its own sort of tragedy, writes John Sutter
updated 4:33 PM EDT, Fri October 17, 2014
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
updated 1:22 PM EDT, Sat October 18, 2014
When you hear "trick or treat" this year, think "nudge," writes John Bare
updated 12:42 AM EDT, Sat October 18, 2014
The more than 200 kidnapped Nigerian schoolgirls have become pawns in a larger drama, writes Richard Joseph.
updated 9:45 AM EDT, Fri October 17, 2014
Peggy Drexler said Amal Alamuddin was accused of buying into the patriarchy when she changed her name to Clooney. But that was her choice.
updated 4:43 PM EDT, Thu October 16, 2014
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
updated 4:58 AM EDT, Sat October 18, 2014
How can such a numerically small force as ISIS take control of vast swathes of Syria and Iraq?
updated 9:42 AM EDT, Fri October 17, 2014
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.
updated 8:21 AM EDT, Fri October 17, 2014
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.
updated 4:27 PM EDT, Thu October 16, 2014
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
updated 12:07 AM EDT, Thu October 16, 2014
The longer we wait to engage on Ebola, the more limited our options will become, says Marco Rubio.
updated 7:53 AM EDT, Wed October 15, 2014
Democratic candidates who run from President Obama in red states where he is unpopular are making a big mistake, says Donna Brazile
updated 12:29 AM EDT, Thu October 16, 2014
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
updated 12:53 PM EDT, Mon October 20, 2014
Paul Callan says the Ebola situation is pointing up the need for better leadership
updated 6:45 PM EDT, Wed October 15, 2014
Nurses are the unsung heroes of the Ebola outbreak. Yet, there are troubling signs we're failing them, says John Sutter
updated 1:00 PM EDT, Wed October 15, 2014
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
updated 7:01 PM EDT, Wed October 15, 2014
Fear of Ebola is contagious, writes Mel Robbins; but it's time to put the disease in perspective
updated 1:44 PM EDT, Tue October 14, 2014
Oliver Kershaw says that if Big Tobacco is given monopoly of e-cigarette products, public health will suffer.
updated 9:35 AM EDT, Sat October 18, 2014
Stop thinking your job will make you happy.
updated 10:08 PM EDT, Tue October 14, 2014
Ruben Navarrette says it's time to deal with another scandal involving the Secret Service — one that leads directly into the White House.
updated 7:25 AM EDT, Tue October 14, 2014
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
updated 9:03 AM EDT, Mon October 13, 2014
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?
updated 4:04 PM EDT, Tue October 14, 2014
Legalizing assisted suicide seems acceptable when focusing on individuals. But such laws would put many at risk of immense harm, writes Marilyn Golden.
updated 9:07 AM EDT, Mon October 13, 2014
Julian Zelizer says the issues are huge, but both parties are wrestling with problems that alienate voters
updated 6:50 PM EDT, Mon October 13, 2014
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
updated 11:43 AM EDT, Sat October 11, 2014
He didn't discover that the world was round, David Perry writes. So what did he do?
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT