Talk:Breast cancer screening

message: looks like advertising, lacks essential information about how it works, no references. Will be deleted soon unless improved. Richiez (talk) 15:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  BCtect 

message: I've removed this:
An analysis of Norwegians published in 2010 found a 10% reduction in breast cancer mortality (2.4 deaths per 100,000 person-years) attributable to screening but this difference was non significant.≤ref></ref>
which is good, but basically redundant with what we've already got.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually that is better than the current saying 15% reduction, both being non signficant.  But now we can ref / say the reduction is non sign.32cllou (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving by deleting 

message: Yobol, the first sentence is not supported by the reference.  See recent text edit, which fix a few problems with dated, unsupported, not referenced info.32cllou (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not supported 

message: See []32cllou (talk) 17:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cochrane Collaboration (CC) 

message: Is it acceptable that a wiki article on a scientific topic is so different from the scientific evidence?
The whole article refers mostly to the publications against screening, which are far from constituting the majority of the available evidence and the consensus in the scientific community. 
Anybody to fix that?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PiotrDohg (talk • contribs) 14:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that "the scientific community" and "the medical community" have somewhat different views at the moment.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the issue you are referring to? Many national bodies recommend screening however the evidence for it is not great. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific evidence 

message: "There is however, no radiation dose (ionizing or not) that is believed to be completely risk free, which is why MBI is primarily used in clinics only in women with dense breast tissue, which often results in inconclusive mammograms. Researchers continue to devote their time to improving the technology, changing scan parameters, and reducing dose to patients."
And why was it added to the article? It is completely wrong. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the thrust of the argument was made by O'Connor in PMC2997811 which I agree seems primary evidence - although it does come from the Department of Radiology at the Mayo Clinic and O'Connor has numerous articles on the topic, which suggests his status as an expert. I checked Trip database, which gave http://www.bcbs.com/blueresources/tec/vols/28/breast-specific-gamma-imaging.html (2013) as its top secondary result, but that review says very little specifically about MBI. Perhaps we need to collect here the best sources we can find that discuss MBI and find a consensus on which are MEDRS-compliant? That ought to allow us to make a proper summary of the best evidence. --RexxS (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sort of mis read it. We need to stick to secondary sources though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: What is this?

message: Please add a history section. When did various testing modalities become available? Who invented them?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysong263 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  history request 

message: Have reverted  as the study states "Screening biennially from ages 50 to 69 years achieved a median 16.5% (range, 15% to 23%) reduction in breast cancer deaths versus no screening. Initiating biennial screening at age 40 years (vs. 50 years) reduced mortality by an additional 3% (range, 1% to 6%), consumed more resources, and yielded more false-positive results." Taking one small bit rather than the main summary is not really reasonable IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it not be better to add in the whole segment that you just described above then? i.e. expand rather than remove - given this is a whole article on screening? The page has 21kb of prose and hence plenty of room for more content Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Agree it should not go in as it was worded - from 2009 it is also getting rather old now. Johnbod (talk) 04:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The USPSTF guidelines are still based on the publications from 2009 that are referenced in this wiki page. Peter Eby (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

text: I am primarily concerned that rather than taking the overall conclusions of the paper they selected some inner details. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't always room in the abstract for all the important results. Some important findings are elsewhere and we are obligated to review the entirety to fully understand what is being presented. I don't understand why the text that I provided can not remain on the page. It is clearly valid. Peter Eby (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

text: My main worry about what Peter added is that it lumps together very different groups, and implies that the benefits for each age are similar.  In fact, the benefit to an average 40 year old (or an average 85 year old) is very different from the benefit to an average 65-year-old woman.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review the paper and you will find a table on breast cancer mortality benefit for multiple different age and screening combinations. I choose the widest range. Any range you choose will demonstrate that screening mammography results in a decrease in deaths from breast cancer. The USPSTF used these data to make their recommendations. Peter Eby (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The number that people really care about is all cause deaths. Those are a little less variable than deaths do to a specific cause. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Results

message: This content is a useful format for presentation
"If 1,000 women in their 50s are screened every year for ten years, the following outcomes are considered typical in the developed world:
* One woman's life will be extended due to earlier detection of breast cancer.
* 2–10 women will be overdiagnosed and needlessly treated for a cancer that would have stopped growing on its own or otherwise caused no harm during the woman's lifetime.
* 5–15 women will be treated for breast cancer, with the same outcome as if they had been detected after symptoms appeared.
* 250–500 will be incorrectly told they might have breast cancer (false positive).
* 125–250 will undergo breast biopsy."
This ref however is not very good 
Are there better refs? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: found info here  Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Content

message: "Review of the evidence on the use of arbitration or consensus within breast screening: A systematic scoping review". Bondegezou (talk) 11:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: New scoping review on consensus methods

message: There was a long, out of date section on breast cancer screening at cancer screening. I cut it from there and I copypasted this below.
This is a content fork and what should happen is that the summary there should send people here to seek more detailed information. Such content should not be developed in multiple places.
There is general agreement in the scientific community that breast screening reduces mortality from the disease. Update at  There is some controversy however about the number of lives saved by breast screening and the number of cancers diagnosed and treated that would not have caused any health problems in the participants' lifetime, sometimes known as over-diagnosis and over-treatment. Non-invasive breast cancers, or ductal carcinoma in situ, sometimes progress to invasive cancer but sometimes do not. Since doctors cannot usually distinguish which DCIS will go on to invasive cancer, most are treated. This is where over-treatment can arise.
Recommendations to attend to mammography screening vary across countries and organizations, with the most common difference being the age at which screening should begin, and how frequently or if it should be performed, among women at typical risk for developing breast cancer. For example, in England, all women were invited for screening once every three years beginning at age 50,"Why are women under 50 not routinely invited for breast screening?", Public Health England, accessed 19 May 2014 though this is transitioning to a start at age 47 by 2016."Age Extension Full Randomised Control Trial", Public Health England. Retrieved 19 May 2014. Some other organizations recommend mammograms begin as early as age 40 in normal-risk women, and take place more frequently, up to once each year. Women at higher risk may benefit from earlier or more frequent screening. Women with one or more first-degree relatives (mother, sister, daughter) with premenopausal breast cancer often begin screening at an earlier age, perhaps at an age 10 years younger than the age when the relative was diagnosed with breast cancer.
The U.S. Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends population screening mammography once for every two years for all women aged 50–74, with decisions about screening younger and older women being determined by consideration of the individual's risk factors and the benefits and harms of screening. They do not recommend either breast self-examination or clinical breast examination. Their recommendation is similar to the World Health Organization's, and less aggressive than some American organizations. A 2011 Cochrane review came to slightly different conclusions with respect to breast cancer screening stating that routine mammography may do more harm than good.
As the debate about the benefits and harms of mammography screening escalated in the United Kingdom, the National Clinical Director for Cancer and the Executive Director of Cancer Research UK commissioned a panel of whom the members had not previously published on breast screening to review the evidence. Members were experts in medical statistics, epidemiology, oncology and a patient representative. This independent review was published in the Lancet on October 30, 2012. The main conclusion of the independent panel was that screening reduced breast cancer mortality, although overdiagnosis also occurs.
 Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forked content - cut and redirect back to here 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Breast cancer screening. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140519202614/http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/breastscreen/research-age-extension-full-rct-faqs.html to http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/breastscreen/research-age-extension-full-rct-faqs.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111002183633/http://www.statehealthfactsonline.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=488&cat=10&yr=17&typ=5 to http://www.statehealthfactsonline.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=488&cat=10&yr=17&typ=5
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070729045204/http://cancer.ca/vgn/images/portal/cit_86751114/31/21/935505792cw_2006stats_en.pdf.pdf to http://www.cancer.ca/vgn/images/portal/cit_86751114/31/21/935505792cw_2006stats_en.pdf.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110710044437/http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf05/brcagen/brcagenrs.htm to http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf05/brcagen/brcagenrs.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Moved here:
"The New England Journal of Medicine published a study concluding that the use of mammography screening is "hard to justify" and propose the possible abolishment of mammographies. The authors noticed that the debate on this issue is based on outdated trials. Over 50 years ago in New York City, the first trials on mammographies begun with the last tried occurring in 1991 in the U.K. However, none of these trials were initiated in time of current breast-cancer treatment, which has dramatically improved the prognosis of women with breast cancer. Secondly, the authors were struck by the fact that the benefits of mammography were not obvious when compared to their harms. The study found that the relative risk reduction was approximately 20% in breast-cancer mortality associated with mammography, which came at the price of a considerable diagnostic cascade, with repeat mammography, biopsies, and overdiagnosis of breast cancers. Moreover, a follow up large scale study on mammography published in the British Medical Journal reported that screening healthy women with mammography to find breast cancers, before a lump could be felt, did not lead to lower death rates for average-risk women in their 40s and 50s."
First it is not "a study" but a commentary. The last one is a primary source and we should be using sectiondary sources.
Some of what was added was a little spammy. Others it is unclear how it relates to screening such as:
"Circulating tumour cells (CTCs) are cancer cells that shed off from the primary tumour and circulate in the bloodstream. CTCs are extremely rare, occurring in 1 in a billion nucleated hematopoietic cells, yet their detection leads to numerous applications in the field of cancer detection and screening such as CTC-based liquid biopsies, disease monitoring and progression, treatment efficacy, and predicting patient outcomes. CTC detection technologies work by an initial enrichment method to highlight the CTCs and reduce background noise followed by an immunodetection method. Some common enrichment methods include immunomagnetic, microfluidic, density-gradient centrifugation, and filtration approaches. Immunodetection methods include the use of immunocytochemistry, immunofluorescence, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), or flow cytometry." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving

message: Hi -- I added a section on risk-based screening, and the information describing the two major studies testing it were removed. I read the style manual entry about not describing random studies, however, the two trials that I had listed are the only examples of risk-based screening in action, and are major, pivotal studies for the strategy. They are actually the first major studies of a non-standard strategy since screening began. So I do think it's instructive to include them, but not clear if it's generally against the rules in such a case.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scientificwriter (talk • contribs) 18:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  clinical studies 

message: — Assignment last updated by Ftaylor4 (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Technical and Scientific Communication