Randomized controlled studies show that screening mammograms are as important for @entity1 aged 40-49 as for @entity1 50 years old and above. It was the improper use of retrospective, unplanned, sub-group analysis to advise @entity1 and their physicians that caused the controversy over mammograms for @entity1 under 50. Furthermore, arbitrarily grouping @entity1 into two groups leads to the incorrect conclusion that the age of 50 is a significant break point when it is not. The data demonstrates that none of the parameters of screening change abruptly at age 50. The recall rates (an abnormal mammogram) and the rate at which biopsies are recommended are virtually the same, regardless of age. @entity0 is not a trivial problem for @entity1 in their forties. More than 30% of the years of life lost to @entity0 are from @entity1 diagnosed while in their forties. Because of changing demographics, in 1995 and 1996, there were actually more @entity1 diagnosed with @entity0 in their forties than for @entity1 in their fifties. The data clearly show that screening @entity1 for @entity0 , on an annual basis, beginning by age 40, can reduce the death rate by approximately 24%. It is important to separate medical and scientific analyses from the economic considerations. "Society" may decide that it is too expensive to screen @entity1 for @entity0 , but @entity1 should be provided with the scientific and medical information so that they can participate in the discussion of whether screening is "worthwhile" and decide whether or not to avail themselves of its benefit. The economics should not be used to influence the scientific and medical analysis of benefit.

An overview of the XXXX screening controversy.

@entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['women'] @entity0 :: ('MESH:D001943', 'Disease') :: ['Breast cancer', 'breast cancer']
@entity0 :: (MESH:D001943,Disease) :: ['breast cancer']
