The full content of Annals is available to subscribers

Subscribe/Learn More  >
Editorials |

Breast Cancer Screening for Women in Their 40s: Moving from Controversy about Data to Helping Individual Women

Joann Elmore, MD, MPH; and John Choe, MD, MPH
[+] Article, Author, and Disclosure Information

From University of Washington and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington.

Acknowledgments: The authors thank Raymond Harris, PhD, and Suzanne Fletcher, MD, for their helpful editorial suggestions.

Grant Support: Dr. Elmore is supported by grant K05-CA104699 from the National Cancer Institute.

Potential Financial Conflicts of Interest: Dr. Elmore has served as an expert witness on the topic of risk communication.

Requests for Single Reprints: Joann G. Elmore, MD, MPH, University of Washington School of Medicine, Harborview Medical Center, 325 Ninth Avenue, Box 359780, Seattle, WA 98104-2499; e-mail, jelmore@u.washington.edu.

Current Author Addresses: Dr. Elmore: University of Washington School of Medicine, Harborview Medical Center, 325 Ninth Avenue, Box 359780, Seattle, WA 98104-2499.

Dr. Choe: University of Washington, 325 Ninth Avenue, Box 359780, Seattle, WA 98104.

Ann Intern Med. 2007;146(7):529-531. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-146-7-200704030-00010
Text Size: A A A

We should move beyond a discussion of the quality of the evidence for breast cancer screening for women in their 40s. Instead, we should learn to live with smaller absolute benefits and higher risks than those we had originally hoped for. In the face of continuing controversy about the evidence, our priority now should be to help women make informed decisions.

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview





Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).


Submit a Comment/Letter
Mammograms and Defensive Radiology
Posted on April 19, 2007
Edward J. Volpintesta
Conflict of Interest: None Declared

The authors were correct to point out how radiologists, because of fears of future litigation often order additional testing and even breast biopsies when reporting mammograms.

Unfortunately, radiologists' fears of litigation extend far beyond the reading of mammograms. With increasing frequency, CAT scans of the abdomen or chest report sub-centimteter nodules that, in the majority of instances prove on follow-up scans to be benign.

Not only is the follow-up and waiting period a source of anguish for patients who expect to be told that they have cancer or some unusual disease, but the explanations to patients, the ordering of additional tests, and, in some instances referrals to specialist is a time-consuming and frustrating effort.

This is a pervasive problem that is shared by all doctors, but it affects general internists and family physicians the most. It amounts to a distraction that diminishes the value of physicians'clinical skills and judgment, making some feel more like technicians than doctors.

I don't know much "defensive radiology" raises the cost of health care,or even if any such studies exist; but, the cost has got to be a lot.

The point is that, unless, medical liability methods are improved, doctors have no choice but to practice defensively.

Taking medical disputes out of the courtroom and handling them in "health courts" presided over by judges with special training in medical liability is often discussed as a better way of handling malpractice issues. By eliminating the adversarial nature of the legal process that now exists, it would give doctors the security they need to use their judgment and not fear ruining their reputations or their livelihoolds because of a frivolous malpractice suit.

Unless better ways treating medical liability are found,such as medical courts, the advances of medicine will be too costly to use, financially for society and emotionally for doctors.

Eventually, the legal risks of new technology will outweigh their medical benefits. Medical research will bde stunted the health system will have taken another step backwards.

Conflict of Interest:

None declared

Submit a Comment/Letter

Summary for Patients

Clinical Slide Sets

Terms of Use

The In the Clinic® slide sets are owned and copyrighted by the American College of Physicians (ACP). All text, graphics, trademarks, and other intellectual property incorporated into the slide sets remain the sole and exclusive property of the ACP. The slide sets may be used only by the person who downloads or purchases them and only for the purpose of presenting them during not-for-profit educational activities. Users may incorporate the entire slide set or selected individual slides into their own teaching presentations but may not alter the content of the slides in any way or remove the ACP copyright notice. Users may make print copies for use as hand-outs for the audience the user is personally addressing but may not otherwise reproduce or distribute the slides by any means or media, including but not limited to sending them as e-mail attachments, posting them on Internet or Intranet sites, publishing them in meeting proceedings, or making them available for sale or distribution in any unauthorized form, without the express written permission of the ACP. Unauthorized use of the In the Clinic slide sets will constitute copyright infringement.


Buy Now for $32.00

to gain full access to the content and tools.

Want to Subscribe?

Learn more about subscription options

Related Articles
Related Point of Care
Topic Collections
PubMed Articles
Forgot your password?
Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a reminder to the email address on record.