Comments and Response on the USPSTF Recommendation on Screening for Breast Cancer
Authors: Nananda F. Col
Journal: Annals of Internal Medicine (2010)

Letters20 April 2010Comments and Response on the USPSTF Recommendation on Screening for Breast CancerFREENananda F. Col, MD, MPP, MPH, Moritz H. Hansen, MD, Baruch Fischhoff, PhD, and Steven G. Pauker, MDNananda F. Col, MD, MPP, MPHFrom Maine Medical Center, Portland, ME 04101; Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213; and Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA 02111.Search for more papers by this author, Moritz H. Hansen, MDFrom Maine Medical Center, Portland, ME 04101; Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213; and Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA 02111.Search for more papers by this author, Baruch Fischhoff, PhDFrom Maine Medical Center, Portland, ME 04101; Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213; and Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA 02111.Search for more papers by this author, and Steven G. Pauker, MDFrom Maine Medical Center, Portland, ME 04101; Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213; and Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA 02111.Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-152-8-201004200-00206 SectionsAboutVisual AbstractPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail TO THE EDITOR:The recommendation statement by the USPSTF (1) sensibly concludes that the decision about mammography should be an individual one, reflecting the patient's values regarding specific benefits and harms. However, the USPSTF did little to enable women to understand these risks and benefits and did not help them to make sound choices about screening. For women in their 40s, the USPSTF considered a 55% chance of a false-positive result (2) to prevent 1 breast cancer death for every 1900 women screened to be unacceptable. Curiously, they reached the opposite conclusion for women in their 50s, in whom “only” a 46% chance of a false-positive result to prevent 1 breast cancer death for 1300 women screened is acceptable. The difference between 1 in 1300 and 1 in 1900 (0.053% vs. 0.077%) is so small that it is difficult to imagine a woman for whom it would matter, which makes this an odd policy distinction. This is a classic “close call” or “toss-up,” and either choice should be acceptable (3).Other factors to consider are the psychological stress of treatment and the reassurance of having done everything possible by being screened. Women are entitled to know the chances that mammography will uncover a treatable cancer and the chances that screening will lead to useless, risky treatment. Reasonable women could make different choices, depending on how they feel about these risks and benefits. Rather than having numbers dictate their decision, women should decide how high of a risk they want to take for how much potential benefit.The public debate sadly veered to whether the USPSTF served the interests of bureaucrats, eager to ration medical care, and insurance companies, eager to deny coverage. But history is repeating itself. A dozen years ago, a National Institutes of Health consensus panel (4) created similar guidelines and also suggested that women in their 40s decide for themselves about screening. Public reaction was similar: widespread concern that the recommendations were driven by health care costs, not science (5). We should have learned that the motivation behind guidelines is easily misconstrued and that the public does not trust expert panels.Patients cannot make informed medical decisions without adequate information that is clearly communicated. The difference between rationing health care and rational health care lies in who makes the decision. If policymakers or insurers limit the availability of tests, it feels like rationing. However, if informed patients choose to forgo tests that are less effective, it becomes rational decision making.Nananda F. Col, MD, MPP, MPHMoritz H. Hansen, MDMaine Medical CenterPortland, ME 04101Baruch Fischhoff, PhDCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburgh, PA 15213Steven G. Pauker, MDTufts University School of MedicineBoston, MA 02111References1. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:716-26, W-236. [PMID: 19920272] MedlineGoogle Scholar2. Christiansen CL, Wang F, Barton MB, Kreuter W, Elmore JG, Gelfand AE, et al. Predicting the cumulative risk of false-positive mammograms. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:1657-66. [PMID: 11036111] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3. Kassirer JP, Pauker SG. The toss-up [Editorial]. N Engl J Med. 1981;305:1467-9. [PMID: 7300866] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4. NIH Consensus Statement. Breast cancer screening for women ages 40-49. NIH Consens Statement. 1997;15:1-35. [PMID: 9267441] MedlineGoogle Scholar5. Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Byram SJ, Sox HC, Fischhoff B, Welch HG. Women's understanding of the mammography screening debate. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:1434-40. [PMID: 10826455] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar Comments0 CommentsSign In to Submit A Comment Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAuthors: Nananda F. Col, MD, MPP, MPH; Moritz H. Hansen, MD; Baruch Fischhoff, PhD; Steven G. Pauker, MDAffiliations: From Maine Medical Center, Portland, ME 04101; Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213; and Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA 02111.Disclosures: None disclosed. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsSee AlsoScreening for Breast Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation StatementWhen Evidence Collides With Anecdote, Politics, and Emotion: Breast Cancer ScreeningComments and Response on the USPSTF Recommendation on Screening for Breast Cancer Anita Ho Comments and Response on the USPSTF Recommendation on Screening for Breast Cancer Diana Pettiti and Ned Calonge Comments and Response on the USPSTF Recommendation on Screening for Breast Cancer Peter B. Dean Comments and Response on the USPSTF Recommendation on Screening for Breast Cancer R. Scott Braithwaite Comments and Response on the USPSTF Recommendation on Screening for Breast Cancer Mitchell H. Gail and Catherine Schairer Comments and Response on the USPSTF Recommendation on Screening for Breast Cancer Colin B. Begg Comments and Response on the USPSTF Recommendation on Screening for Breast Cancer Richard Yoast Comments and Response on the USPSTF Recommendation on Screening for Breast Cancer Victoria L. Seewaldt Metrics Cited byPersonalizing Age of Cancer Screening Cessation Based on Comorbid Conditions: Model Estimates of Harms and BenefitsIris Lansdorp-Vogelaar, PhD, Roman Gulati, MS, Angela B. Mariotto, PhD, Clyde B. Schechter, MD, MA, Tiago M. de Carvalho, MSc, Amy B. Knudsen, PhD, Nicolien T. van Ravesteyn, PhD, Eveline A.M. Heijnsdijk, PhD, Chester Pabiniak, MSc, Marjolein van Ballegooijen, MD, PhD, Carolyn M. Rutter, PhD, Karen M. Kuntz, ScD, Eric J. Feuer, PhD, Ruth Etzioni, PhD, Harry J. de Koning, MD, PhD, Ann G. Zauber, PhD, and Jeanne S. Mandelblatt, MD, MPHWhen Evidence Collides With Anecdote, Politics, and Emotion: Breast Cancer ScreeningThe Editors 20 April 2010Volume 152, Issue 8Page: 542KeywordsBreast cancerCancer screeningCancer treatmentConflicts of interestDecision makingHealth careMammographyMotivationPsychological stress ePublished: 20 April 2010 Issue Published: 20 April 2010 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2010 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...