Response to: “[Miller’s] Response to: ‘Beyond the mammography debate: a moderate perspective’” (Yaffe) Ovarian Cancer and Us OVARIAN CANCER and US Ovarian Cancer and Us

Blog Archives: Nov 2004 - present

#ovariancancers



Special items: Ovarian Cancer and Us blog best viewed in Firefox

Search This Blog

Monday, June 13, 2016

Response to: “[Miller’s] Response to: ‘Beyond the mammography debate: a moderate perspective’” (Yaffe)



Response to: “[Miller’s] Response to: ‘Beyond the mammography debate: a moderate perspective’” | Yaffe | Current Oncology

 ......Mammography screening has limitations. They include reduced sensitivity in some women, including those with very dense breasts, recalls of some women without cancer for further imaging and, occasionally, needle biopsy. Certainly, some screen-detected breast cancers, mainly ductal carcinoma in situ (and probably some self-detected cancers) are overtreated. But to assert that screening does not reduce breast cancer deaths—not to mention allow for less use of some of the debilitating, aggressive therapies necessary for women with advanced disease—is a fringe opinion at odds with the evidence and global expert opinion. Furthermore, it is an irresponsible message to convey to women and their health care providers.
 Author Affiliations
Imaging Research, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Departments of Medical Biophysics and Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Smarter Imaging Program, Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, Toronto, Ontario.

REFERENCES

1. Lauby-Secretan B, Scoccianti C, Loomis D, et al. on behalf of the International Agency for Research on Cancer Handbook Working Group. Breast-cancer screening—viewpoint of the iarc working group. N Engl J Med 2015;372:2353–8.
cross-ref  pubmed  
2. Independent U.K. Panel on Breast Cancer Screening. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet 2012;380:1778–86.
cross-ref  pubmed  
3. Narod SA. Counterpoint re: “Mammography screening-sticking to the science.” Curr Oncol 2015;22:177.
cross-ref  
4. Boyd NF, Jong RA, Yaffe MJ, Tritchler D, Lockwood G, Zylak CJ. A critical appraisal of the Canadian National Breast Cancer Screening Study. Radiology 1993;189:661–3.
cross-ref  pubmed  
5. Baines CJ, Miller AB, Kopans DB, et al. Canadian National Breast Screening Study: assessment of technical quality by external review. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1990;155:743–7.
cross-ref  pubmed  
6. Baum M, Demicheli R, Hrushesky W, Retsky M. Does surgery unfavourably perturb the “natural history” of early breast cancer by accelerating the appearance of distant metastases? Eur J Cancer 2005;41:508–15.
cross-ref  pubmed  
7. Yaffe MJ. Correction: Canada Study [letter]. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993;85:94.
8. Yaffe MJ. Point: Mammography screening—sticking to the science. Curr Oncol 2015;22:174–6.
cross-ref  pubmed  pmc  
9. Miller AB, Baines CJ, To T, Wall C. Canadian National Breast Screening Study: 1. Breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 40 to 49 years. CMAJ 1992;147:1459–76. [Erratum in: CMAJ 1993;148:718]
pubmed  pmc  
10. Tabár L, Chen HH, Yen AM, et al. Response to Miller et al. Breast J 2015;21:459–61.
cross-ref  
11. Miller AB, Wall C, Baines CJ, Sun P, To T, Narod SA. Twenty five year follow-up for breast cancer incidence and mortality of the Canadian National Breast Screening Study: randomised screening trial. BMJ 2014;348:g366.
cross-ref  pubmed  pmc  

Correspondence to: Martin J. Yaffe, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, 2075

Current Oncology, VOLUME 23, NUMBER 3, June 2016

0 comments :

Post a Comment

Your comments?