SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Papas Fritas writes:
"In the United States, about 37 million mammograms are performed annually at a cost of about $100 per mammogram and nearly three-quarters of women age 40 and over say they had a mammogram in the past year. Now the NYT reports that a study involving 90,000 women and lasting a quarter-century has added powerful new doubts about the value of the screening test for women of any age finding that the death rates from breast cancer and from all causes were the same in women who got mammograms and those who did not.
'It will make women uncomfortable, and they should be uncomfortable,' says screening expert Dr. Russell P. Harris who was not involved in the study. 'The decision to have a mammogram should not be a slam dunk.' An editorial accompanying the new study says that earlier studies that found mammograms helped women were done before the routine use of drugs like tamoxifen that sharply reduced the breast cancer death rate. In addition, many previous studies did not use the gold-standard methods of the clinical trial, randomly assigning women to be screened or not, noted the editorial's author, Dr. Mette Kalager. According to Kalager, with better treatments, like tamoxifen, it is less important to find cancers early.
Also, she says, women in the study were aware of breast cancer and its dangers, unlike women in earlier studies who were more likely to ignore lumps. 'As time goes by we do indeed need more efficient mechanisms to reconsider priorities and recommendations for mammography screening and other medical interventions,' concludes Kalager. 'This is not an easy task, because governments, research funders, scientists, and medical practitioners may have vested interests in continuing activities that are well established.'"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by soulde on Tuesday February 25 2014, @03:35AM
I know that for women under 50 years it is considered absolutelly irrelevant the use of mammograms. ;)
I think this study puts that age way above. Something like 100 years?
Anyway, mammograms use some dosis of radiation in a very, very sensitive part of the body to cancer. The biggest finding, yet, of the study is that women who received mammograms were more prone to develop cancer (3250 x 3133). Slighly statistical relevant, but yet, relevant.
(Score: 1) by tangomargarine on Tuesday February 25 2014, @04:31PM
I believe that would be the textbook definition of irony for grammar Nazis: Getting cancer from a treatment meant to tell you whether you have cancer?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"