User login
“MORE THAN ONE-THIRD OF TUMORS FOUND ON BREAST CANCER SCREENING REPRESENT OVERDIAGNOSIS”
ANDREW M. KAUNITZ, MD (MARCH 2017)
Refutes concept of overdiagnosis of breast cancer
I read with interest and serious concern the commentary and conclusions of “overdiagnosed” breast cancer. Let us revisit a few time-honored principles. Are we throwing away the valued concept of the early diagnosis of node-negative breast cancer? Is it still true that 5-year and long-term survivals are markedly better for stage I and II disease as opposed to stage III and IV disease? Is it still true that treatments designed for cure are substantially less involved, more successful, and more likely to conserve the breast and require less chemotherapy in early stage disease? Is it still true that the majority of women diagnosed with breast cancer are in the lowest risk category, ie, no family history and negative for the BRCA gene? If so, then who can explain the statement that “an invasive breast cancer detected by any means is overdiagnosis”? Would this imply that screening and the biopsy required to make the diagnosis was time poorly spent, the breast cancer should not be treated, and/or we should simply wait for a lump to be found by the patient deep in a large breast most likely at that point representing advanced disease?
The last paragraph notes the current US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidance: wait until 50 years of age to start biennial screening. If so, what do we say to women in their 40s who, through screening with mammography and/or ultrasound, were diagnosed with early node-negative invasive breast cancer? That all of that was unnecessary and would not have led to symptoms? Would extreme morbidity from advanced or recurrent disease and the horrors of treatment just to extend a few months of life qualify as a symptom to these investigators? Lax protocols are not for me, my colleagues, or patients that I know. One of the most common reasons for a lawsuit to be brought against a primary care or ObGyn provider is failure to diagnose breast cancer!
John T. Armstrong, MD
Napa, California
Dr. Kaunitz responds
I thank Dr. Armstrong for his interest in my commentary on screening mammography and overdiagnosis. As I indicated in my commentary, I continue to recommend screening mammography for my patients, encouraging average-risk women to begin biennial screens at age 50 (consistent with USPSTF guidance), when the likelihood that tumors found with mammograms representing overdiagnosis is lower. I also indicated that I recognize that some patients prefer to begin screening at a younger age and to be screened more frequently. Dr. Armstrong’s letter refers to the “horrors of treatment” of breast cancer. From my perspective, the most “horrible” treatment is that which is administered to a woman diagnosed with a tumor destined to not cause clinical problems during her lifetime (overdiagnosis). You also refer to a statement, “an invasive breast cancer detected by any means is overdiagnosis.” That statement does not appear in my commentary.
My commentary’s point is that overdiagnosis is common among tumors diagnosed by screening mammography, and likely explains why, in contrast with cervical cancer screening, screening mammography has failed to reduce the incidence of breast cancers presenting as advanced (metastatic) disease. Although this represents a confusing and disquieting reality for our patients, and for us their clinicians, I agree with Dr. Otis Brawley, Chief Medical and Scientific Officer of the American Cancer Society, that we must acknowledge to our patients that overdiagnosis is common, the benefits of screening have been overstated, and that some patients considered as “cured” from breast cancer have in fact been harmed by unneeded treatment.1
Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.
- Brawley OW. Accepting the existence of breast cancer overdiagnosis [published online ahead of print January 10, 2017]. Ann Intern Med. doi:10.7326/M16-2850.
“MORE THAN ONE-THIRD OF TUMORS FOUND ON BREAST CANCER SCREENING REPRESENT OVERDIAGNOSIS”
ANDREW M. KAUNITZ, MD (MARCH 2017)
Refutes concept of overdiagnosis of breast cancer
I read with interest and serious concern the commentary and conclusions of “overdiagnosed” breast cancer. Let us revisit a few time-honored principles. Are we throwing away the valued concept of the early diagnosis of node-negative breast cancer? Is it still true that 5-year and long-term survivals are markedly better for stage I and II disease as opposed to stage III and IV disease? Is it still true that treatments designed for cure are substantially less involved, more successful, and more likely to conserve the breast and require less chemotherapy in early stage disease? Is it still true that the majority of women diagnosed with breast cancer are in the lowest risk category, ie, no family history and negative for the BRCA gene? If so, then who can explain the statement that “an invasive breast cancer detected by any means is overdiagnosis”? Would this imply that screening and the biopsy required to make the diagnosis was time poorly spent, the breast cancer should not be treated, and/or we should simply wait for a lump to be found by the patient deep in a large breast most likely at that point representing advanced disease?
The last paragraph notes the current US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidance: wait until 50 years of age to start biennial screening. If so, what do we say to women in their 40s who, through screening with mammography and/or ultrasound, were diagnosed with early node-negative invasive breast cancer? That all of that was unnecessary and would not have led to symptoms? Would extreme morbidity from advanced or recurrent disease and the horrors of treatment just to extend a few months of life qualify as a symptom to these investigators? Lax protocols are not for me, my colleagues, or patients that I know. One of the most common reasons for a lawsuit to be brought against a primary care or ObGyn provider is failure to diagnose breast cancer!
John T. Armstrong, MD
Napa, California
Dr. Kaunitz responds
I thank Dr. Armstrong for his interest in my commentary on screening mammography and overdiagnosis. As I indicated in my commentary, I continue to recommend screening mammography for my patients, encouraging average-risk women to begin biennial screens at age 50 (consistent with USPSTF guidance), when the likelihood that tumors found with mammograms representing overdiagnosis is lower. I also indicated that I recognize that some patients prefer to begin screening at a younger age and to be screened more frequently. Dr. Armstrong’s letter refers to the “horrors of treatment” of breast cancer. From my perspective, the most “horrible” treatment is that which is administered to a woman diagnosed with a tumor destined to not cause clinical problems during her lifetime (overdiagnosis). You also refer to a statement, “an invasive breast cancer detected by any means is overdiagnosis.” That statement does not appear in my commentary.
My commentary’s point is that overdiagnosis is common among tumors diagnosed by screening mammography, and likely explains why, in contrast with cervical cancer screening, screening mammography has failed to reduce the incidence of breast cancers presenting as advanced (metastatic) disease. Although this represents a confusing and disquieting reality for our patients, and for us their clinicians, I agree with Dr. Otis Brawley, Chief Medical and Scientific Officer of the American Cancer Society, that we must acknowledge to our patients that overdiagnosis is common, the benefits of screening have been overstated, and that some patients considered as “cured” from breast cancer have in fact been harmed by unneeded treatment.1
Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.
“MORE THAN ONE-THIRD OF TUMORS FOUND ON BREAST CANCER SCREENING REPRESENT OVERDIAGNOSIS”
ANDREW M. KAUNITZ, MD (MARCH 2017)
Refutes concept of overdiagnosis of breast cancer
I read with interest and serious concern the commentary and conclusions of “overdiagnosed” breast cancer. Let us revisit a few time-honored principles. Are we throwing away the valued concept of the early diagnosis of node-negative breast cancer? Is it still true that 5-year and long-term survivals are markedly better for stage I and II disease as opposed to stage III and IV disease? Is it still true that treatments designed for cure are substantially less involved, more successful, and more likely to conserve the breast and require less chemotherapy in early stage disease? Is it still true that the majority of women diagnosed with breast cancer are in the lowest risk category, ie, no family history and negative for the BRCA gene? If so, then who can explain the statement that “an invasive breast cancer detected by any means is overdiagnosis”? Would this imply that screening and the biopsy required to make the diagnosis was time poorly spent, the breast cancer should not be treated, and/or we should simply wait for a lump to be found by the patient deep in a large breast most likely at that point representing advanced disease?
The last paragraph notes the current US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidance: wait until 50 years of age to start biennial screening. If so, what do we say to women in their 40s who, through screening with mammography and/or ultrasound, were diagnosed with early node-negative invasive breast cancer? That all of that was unnecessary and would not have led to symptoms? Would extreme morbidity from advanced or recurrent disease and the horrors of treatment just to extend a few months of life qualify as a symptom to these investigators? Lax protocols are not for me, my colleagues, or patients that I know. One of the most common reasons for a lawsuit to be brought against a primary care or ObGyn provider is failure to diagnose breast cancer!
John T. Armstrong, MD
Napa, California
Dr. Kaunitz responds
I thank Dr. Armstrong for his interest in my commentary on screening mammography and overdiagnosis. As I indicated in my commentary, I continue to recommend screening mammography for my patients, encouraging average-risk women to begin biennial screens at age 50 (consistent with USPSTF guidance), when the likelihood that tumors found with mammograms representing overdiagnosis is lower. I also indicated that I recognize that some patients prefer to begin screening at a younger age and to be screened more frequently. Dr. Armstrong’s letter refers to the “horrors of treatment” of breast cancer. From my perspective, the most “horrible” treatment is that which is administered to a woman diagnosed with a tumor destined to not cause clinical problems during her lifetime (overdiagnosis). You also refer to a statement, “an invasive breast cancer detected by any means is overdiagnosis.” That statement does not appear in my commentary.
My commentary’s point is that overdiagnosis is common among tumors diagnosed by screening mammography, and likely explains why, in contrast with cervical cancer screening, screening mammography has failed to reduce the incidence of breast cancers presenting as advanced (metastatic) disease. Although this represents a confusing and disquieting reality for our patients, and for us their clinicians, I agree with Dr. Otis Brawley, Chief Medical and Scientific Officer of the American Cancer Society, that we must acknowledge to our patients that overdiagnosis is common, the benefits of screening have been overstated, and that some patients considered as “cured” from breast cancer have in fact been harmed by unneeded treatment.1
Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.
- Brawley OW. Accepting the existence of breast cancer overdiagnosis [published online ahead of print January 10, 2017]. Ann Intern Med. doi:10.7326/M16-2850.
- Brawley OW. Accepting the existence of breast cancer overdiagnosis [published online ahead of print January 10, 2017]. Ann Intern Med. doi:10.7326/M16-2850.
