 |
 |
|
Home |
Current Issue |
Past Issues |
In the Clinic |
ACP Journal Club |
CME |
Collections |
Audio/Video |
Mobile |
Subscribe |
Tools |
Help |
ACP Online
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 December 1997 | Volume 127 Issue 11 | Pages 1029-1034
The debate about breast cancer screening for women in their 40s has become so contentious that effective communication and rational discussion on this topic have been compromised.This contentiousness might be defused by understanding the reasons for it. The debate is less about facts than it is about perceptions and values. There is disagreement about how to fairly describe facts about risk and how to avoid misperceptions that may distort assessment of risk. Other sources of disagreement concern the potential harms of screening, the relative roles of physicians and patients in decision making, and how to factor cost into screening decisions. The entire decision-making process has also been highly charged by single-issue advocacy groups and a kind of gender rivalry.
Several approaches might help defuse the debate and improve discussion.First, those on both sides of the debate might agree on several things: 1) that the evidence from clinical trials is widely agreed-upon and thus that a main task now is to factor in the values of individual women who are making decisions; 2) that the values of women may differ substantially and that those differences should be respected; 3) that both individuals and the public should be fully and fairly informed about the pros and cons of screening; and 4) that cost-effectiveness should at least be considered during the decision-making process. Lessons from this debate may apply to other medical problems that have small degrees of risk and whose management is strongly debated.
Author and Article Information
From the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
PERSPECTIVE
Lessons from the Mammography Screening Controversy: Can We Improve the Debate?
Requests for Reprints: David F. Ransohoff, MD, CB #7105, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7105.
Current Author Addresses: Dr. Ransohoff: CB #7105, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7105.
Related articles in Annals:
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  A. B. Knudsen, P. M. McMahon, and G. S. Gazelle Use of Modeling to Evaluate the Cost-Effectiveness of Cancer Screening Programs J. Clin. Oncol., January 10, 2007; 25(2): 203 - 208. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G. S. Gazelle, P. M. McMahon, U. Siebert, and M. T. Beinfeld Cost-effectiveness Analysis in the Assessment of Diagnostic Imaging Technologies Radiology, May 1, 2005; 235(2): 361 - 370. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. J. Jorgensen and P. C Gotzsche Presentation on websites of possible benefits and harms from screening for breast cancer: cross sectional study BMJ, January 17, 2004; 328(7432): 148. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. M. Schwartz, S. Woloshin, F. J. Fowler Jr, and H. G. Welch Enthusiasm for Cancer Screening in the United States JAMA, January 7, 2004; 291(1): 71 - 78. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. M. Schwartz and S. Woloshin News Media Coverage of Screening Mammography for Women in Their 40s and Tamoxifen for Primary Prevention of Breast Cancer JAMA, June 19, 2002; 287(23): 3136 - 3142. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. J. Murphy, G. J. Gahm, S. Santilli, P. North, S. C.N. Oliver, and H. Shapiro Seniors' Preferences for Cancer Screening and Medication Use Based on Absolute Risk Reduction J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci., February 1, 2002; 57(2): M100 - 105. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. C. Walter and K. E. Covinsky Cancer Screening in Elderly Patients: A Framework for Individualized Decision Making JAMA, June 6, 2001; 285(21): 2750 - 2756. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. B. Barton Screening mammography for women aged 40-49: Are we off the fence yet? Can. Med. Assoc. J., February 1, 2001; 164(4): 498 - 499. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 X. q. Chen, H. Bonnefoi, M.-F. Pelte, J. Lyautey, C. Lederrey, S. Movarekhi, P. Schaeffer, H. E. Mulcahy, P. Meyer, M. Stroun, et al. Telomerase RNA as a Detection Marker in the Serum of Breast Cancer Patients Clin. Cancer Res., October 1, 2000; 6(10): 3823 - 3826. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. M Schwartz, S. Woloshin, H. C Sox, B. Fischhoff, and H G. Welch US women's attitudes to false positive mammography results and detection of ductal carcinoma in situ: cross sectional survey BMJ, June 17, 2000; 320(7250): 1635 - 1640. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. H. Morreim Quality of Life: Erosions and Opportunities Under Managed Care J. Law Med. Ethics, June 1, 2000; 28(2): 144 - 158. [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
X. q. Chen, H. Bonnefoi, S. Diebold-Berger, J. Lyautey, C. Lederrey, E. Faltin-Traub, M. Stroun, and P. Anker Detecting Tumor-related Alterations in Plasma or Serum DNA of Patients Diagnosed with Breast Cancer Clin. Cancer Res., September 1, 1999; 5(9): 2297 - 2303. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. B. Kopans The Breast Cancer Screening Controversy and the National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference on Breast Cancer Screening for Women Ages 40–49 Radiology, January 1, 1999; 210(1): 4 - 9. [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Screening Mammograms at Age 40 to 49: Not Very Cost-Effective Journal Watch Women's Health, February 1, 1998; 1998(201): 13 - 13. [Full Text]
|
|
Article
