Breast cancer screening leads to 'unnecessary treatment'

Daily Echo: Breast cancer screening leads to 'unnecessary treatment' Breast cancer screening leads to 'unnecessary treatment'

HAMPSHIRE women have urged to continue to gofor breast cacner screening despite a review stating thousands of people are undergoing unnecessary treatment for non life-threatening cancers.

The official study released today found that as many as 4,000 women in Britain receive therapy for non-life threatening forms of the disease every year because of overdiagnosis. It also revealed however that about 1,300 lives are saved by mammography.

Today Southampton MP John Denham has spoken out to welcome the government's immediate revision of their leaflet inviting women for screening, saying it is vital women have the information so they can weigh up the benefits against the potential harm.

He told the Daily Echo: “I hope that nobody is put off but I do think every woman who is invited for screening has a right to be given the latest evidence about the pros and cons to know the advantages as well as the risks of it.

“This is not a decision that doctors can make on behalf of their patients. The evidence we have got it all based on statistics of what is most likely to happen so each individual woman has to take the decision for herself.

“We must ensure that the information is available as clearly and simply as possible.”

The NHS Breast Cancer Screening Programme was launched in the UK in 1988 and invites all women aged between 50 and 70 to screening every three years.

There has been an ongoing debate about the benefits and harms of screening for the past 10 years, prompting the Government and charity Cancer Research UK to last year launch a review of the controversial programme.

An independent panel led by University College London's Professor Sir Michael Marmot was tasked with analysing data from screening trials from a number of countries over recent decades.

Its report, published in The Lancet, concludes that screening reduces breast cancer mortality but that some overdiagnosis occurs. It found that for every life saved, three women were overdiagnosed.

The panel said: ''Since the estimates provided are from studies with many limitations and whose relevance to present-day screening programmes can be questioned, they have substantial uncertainty and should be regarded only as an approximate guide.

''If these figures are used directly, for every 10,000 UK women aged 50 years invited to screening for the next 20 years, 43 deaths from breast cancer would be prevented and 129 cases of breast cancer, invasive and non-invasive, would be overdiagnosed; that is one breast cancer death prevented for about every three overdiagnosed cases identified and treated.

''Of the roughly 307,000 women aged 50--52 years who are invited to begin screening every year, just over 1 per cent would have an overdiagnosed cancer in the next 20 years.''

The panel added: ''Evidence from a focus group organised by Cancer Research UK and attended by some members of the panel showed that many women feel that accepting the offer of breast screening is worthwhile, which agrees with the results of previous similar studies.

''Information should be made available in a transparent and objective way to women invited to screening so that they can make informed decisions.''

Professor Sir Mike Richards, National Cancer Director, said: ''I welcome the fact that the review clearly recommends that breast screening should continue.

''But the key thing is that we communicate this new information to women so they can make an informed choice for themselves.

''NHS Cancer Screening programmes have already asked independent academics to develop new materials to give the facts in a clear, unbiased way.

''I hope to see them in use in the next few months.

''If any woman has concerns about breast screening she should talk to her GP or health professional.''

Dr Harpal Kumar, chief executive of Cancer Research UK, said: ''The independent review shows screening saves lives.

''Screening remains one of the best ways to spot the very early signs of breast cancer, at a stage when treatment is most likely to be successful.

''Yet, as the review shows, some cancers will be diagnosed and treated that would never have caused any harm. Clearly, everyone wants to minimise this.

''But because we can't yet tell which cancers are harmful and which are not, we cannot predict what will happen in an individual woman's case.''

He added: ''We think it's vitally important for women to have access to clear information about breast screening, the balance of benefits and harms and the fact that they could be diagnosed with and treated for a cancer that might not cause them harm.

''So, on balance, taking all the evidence into account, Cancer Research UK recommends that women go for breast screening when invited.''

Today the charities Breakthrough Breast Cancer, Breast Cancer Campaign and Breast Cancer Care issued a joint statement urging women to go for screening.

They said the review provided “much-needed clarity” and that “screening can save lives.”

It said: “This is good news for women as they can now be assured that breast screening can be beneficial.

“To ensure women understand what this may mean for them it is important they have access to clear and balanced information on the pros and cons of breast screening.”

Comments (3)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:18pm Tue 30 Oct 12

TwistedWitch says...

Yet, as the review shows, some cancers will be diagnosed and treated that would never have caused any harm. Clearly, everyone wants to minimise this.

''But because we can't yet tell which cancers are harmful and which are not, we cannot predict what will happen in an individual woman's case.''

So if that's the case, how can the report say unecessary treatment. Or even saying it's harmful.

Surely if there is even a chance that a cancer will be harmful the female concerned should be given the choice to get rid of it. Without screening, she could have a cancer growing and know nothing about it until it became harmful and was too late.

Scaremongering in my opinion!
Yet, as the review shows, some cancers will be diagnosed and treated that would never have caused any harm. Clearly, everyone wants to minimise this. ''But because we can't yet tell which cancers are harmful and which are not, we cannot predict what will happen in an individual woman's case.'' So if that's the case, how can the report say unecessary treatment. Or even saying it's harmful. Surely if there is even a chance that a cancer will be harmful the female concerned should be given the choice to get rid of it. Without screening, she could have a cancer growing and know nothing about it until it became harmful and was too late. Scaremongering in my opinion! TwistedWitch
  • Score: 0

12:40pm Tue 30 Oct 12

Subject48 says...

The panel said: ''Since the estimates provided are from studies with many limitations and whose relevance to present-day screening programmes can be questioned, they have substantial uncertainty and should be regarded only as an approximate guide.

"thanks for the money. did a study but its not verry goood..."
The panel said: ''Since the estimates provided are from studies with many limitations and whose relevance to present-day screening programmes can be questioned, they have substantial uncertainty and should be regarded only as an approximate guide. "thanks for the money. did a study but its not verry goood..." Subject48
  • Score: 0

5:04pm Wed 31 Oct 12

cantthinkofone says...

TwistedWitch wrote:
Yet, as the review shows, some cancers will be diagnosed and treated that would never have caused any harm. Clearly, everyone wants to minimise this.

''But because we can't yet tell which cancers are harmful and which are not, we cannot predict what will happen in an individual woman's case.''

So if that's the case, how can the report say unecessary treatment. Or even saying it's harmful.

Surely if there is even a chance that a cancer will be harmful the female concerned should be given the choice to get rid of it. Without screening, she could have a cancer growing and know nothing about it until it became harmful and was too late.

Scaremongering in my opinion!
No, not at all. The research is very good quality, and the conclusions are well explained in the paper.

It's available for free on The Lancet's website.

Google...
"10.1016/S0140-6736(
12)61611-0"
...and you'll go straight to it.
[quote][p][bold]TwistedWitch[/bold] wrote: Yet, as the review shows, some cancers will be diagnosed and treated that would never have caused any harm. Clearly, everyone wants to minimise this. ''But because we can't yet tell which cancers are harmful and which are not, we cannot predict what will happen in an individual woman's case.'' So if that's the case, how can the report say unecessary treatment. Or even saying it's harmful. Surely if there is even a chance that a cancer will be harmful the female concerned should be given the choice to get rid of it. Without screening, she could have a cancer growing and know nothing about it until it became harmful and was too late. Scaremongering in my opinion![/p][/quote]No, not at all. The research is very good quality, and the conclusions are well explained in the paper. It's available for free on The Lancet's website. Google... "10.1016/S0140-6736( 12)61611-0" ...and you'll go straight to it. cantthinkofone
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree