Skip Navigation
American College of Physicians Logo
  • Subscribe
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Sign In
    Sign in below to access your subscription for full content
    INDIVIDUAL SIGN IN
    Sign In|Set Up Account
    You will be directed to acponline.org to register and create your Annals account
    INSTITUTIONAL SIGN IN
    Open Athens|Shibboleth|Log In
    Annals of Internal Medicine
    SUBSCRIBE
    Subscribe to Annals of Internal Medicine.
    You will be directed to acponline.org to complete your purchase.
Annals of Internal Medicine Logo Menu
  • Latest
  • Issues
  • Channels
  • CME/MOC
  • In the Clinic
  • Journal Club
  • Web Exclusives
  • Author Info
Advanced Search
  • ‹ PREV ARTICLE
  • This Issue
  • NEXT ARTICLE ›
Letters |20 April 2010

Comments and Response on the USPSTF Recommendation on Screening for Breast Cancer Free

Nananda F. Col, MD, MPP, MPH; Moritz H. Hansen, MD; Baruch Fischhoff, PhD; Steven G. Pauker, MD

Nananda F. Col, MD, MPP, MPH

Moritz H. Hansen, MD

Baruch Fischhoff, PhD

Steven G. Pauker, MD

Article, Author, and Disclosure Information
Author, Article, and Disclosure Information
Potential Conflicts of Interest: None disclosed.
  • From Maine Medical Center, Portland, ME 04101; Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213; and Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA 02111.
×
  • ‹ PREV ARTICLE
  • This Issue
  • NEXT ARTICLE ›
Jump To
  • Full Article
  • FULL ARTICLE
  • FULL ARTICLE
      1. References
  • Figures
  • Tables
  • Supplements
  • Audio/Video
  • Summary for Patients
  • Clinical Slide Sets
  • CME / MOC
  • Comments
  • Twitter Link
  • Facebook Link
  • Email Link
More
  • LinkedIn Link
  • CiteULike Link
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, MPH
Moritz H. Hansen, MD
Maine Medical Center
Portland, ME 04101
Baruch Fischhoff, PhD
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
Steven G. Pauker, MD
Tufts University School of Medicine
Boston, MA 02111

References

  1. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
    Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.
    Ann Intern Med
    2009
    151
    PubMed
  2. 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
    PubMed
    CrossRef
  3. Kassirer
    JP
    ,  
    Pauker
    SG
    .  
    The toss-up [Editorial].
    N Engl J Med
    1981
    305
    1467
    9
    PubMed
  4. NIH Consensus Statement
    Breast cancer screening for women ages 40-49.
    NIH Consens Statement
    1997
    15
    1
    35
    PubMed
  5. 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
    PubMed

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.

This feature is available only to Registered Users

Subscribe/Learn More
Submit a Comment

0 Comments

PDF
Not Available
Citations
Citation

Col NF, Hansen MH, Fischhoff B, Pauker SG. Comments and Response on the USPSTF Recommendation on Screening for Breast Cancer. Ann Intern Med. ;152:542. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-152-8-201004200-00206

Download citation file:

  • Ris (Zotero)
  • EndNote
  • BibTex
  • Medlars
  • ProCite
  • RefWorks
  • Reference Manager

© 2019

×
Permissions

Published: Ann Intern Med. 2010;152(8):542.

DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-152-8-201004200-00206

2 Citations

See Also

Screening for Breast Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement
When Evidence Collides With Anecdote, Politics, and Emotion: Breast Cancer Screening
Comments and Response on the USPSTF Recommendation on Screening for Breast Cancer
Comments and Response on the USPSTF Recommendation on Screening for Breast Cancer
Comments and Response on the USPSTF Recommendation on Screening for Breast Cancer
Comments and Response on the USPSTF Recommendation on Screening for Breast Cancer
Comments and Response on the USPSTF Recommendation on Screening for Breast Cancer
Comments and Response on the USPSTF Recommendation on Screening for Breast Cancer
Comments and Response on the USPSTF Recommendation on Screening for Breast Cancer
Comments and Response on the USPSTF Recommendation on Screening for Breast Cancer
View MoreView Less
CME/MOC Activity Requires Users to be Registered and Logged In.
Sign in below to access your subscription for full content
INDIVIDUAL SIGN IN
Sign In|Set Up Account
You will be directed to acponline.org to register and create your Annals account
Annals of Internal Medicine
CREATE YOUR FREE ACCOUNT
Create Your Free Account|Why?
To receive access to the full text of freely available articles, alerts, and more. You will be directed to acponline.org to complete your registration.
×
The Comments Feature Requires Users to be Registered and Logged In.
Sign in below to access your subscription for full content
INDIVIDUAL SIGN IN
Sign In|Set Up Account
You will be directed to acponline.org to register and create your Annals account
Annals of Internal Medicine
CREATE YOUR FREE ACCOUNT
Create Your Free Account|Why?
To receive access to the full text of freely available articles, alerts, and more. You will be directed to acponline.org to complete your registration.
×
link to top

Content

  • Home
  • Latest
  • Issues
  • Channels
  • CME/MOC
  • In the Clinic
  • Journal Club
  • Web Exclusives

Information For

  • Author Info
  • Reviewers
  • Press
  • Readers
  • Institutions / Libraries / Agencies
  • Advertisers

Services

  • Subscribe
  • Renew
  • Alerts
  • Current Issue RSS
  • Latest RSS
  • In the Clinic RSS
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Contact Us
  • Help
  • About Annals
  • About Mobile
  • Patient Information
  • Teaching Tools
  • Annals in the News
  • Share Your Feedback

Awards and Cover

  • Personae (Cover Photo)
  • Junior Investigator Awards
  • Poetry Prize

Other Resources

  • ACP Online
  • Career Connection
  • ACP Advocate Blog
  • ACP Journal Wise

Follow Annals On

  • Twitter Link
  • Facebook Link
acp link acp
silverchair link silverchair

Copyright © 2019 American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.

Print ISSN: 0003-4819 | Online ISSN: 1539-3704

Privacy Policy

|

Conditions of Use

This site uses cookies. By continuing to use our website, you are agreeing to our privacy policy. | Accept
×

You need a subscription to this content to use this feature.

×
PDF Downloads Require Access to the Full Article.
Sign in below to access your subscription for full content
INDIVIDUAL SIGN IN
Sign In|Set Up Account
You will be directed to acponline.org to register and create your Annals account
INSTITUTIONAL SIGN IN
Open Athens|Shibboleth|Log In
Annals of Internal Medicine
PURCHASE OPTIONS
Buy This Article|Subscribe
You will be redirected to acponline.org to sign-in to Annals to complete your purchase.
CREATE YOUR FREE ACCOUNT
Create Your Free Account|Why?
To receive access to the full text of freely available articles, alerts, and more. You will be directed to acponline.org to complete your registration.
×
Access to this Free Content Requires Users to be Registered and Logged In. Please Choose One of the Following Options
Sign in below to access your subscription for full content
INDIVIDUAL SIGN IN
Sign In|Set Up Account
You will be directed to acponline.org to register and create your Annals account
Annals of Internal Medicine
CREATE YOUR FREE ACCOUNT
Create Your Free Account|Why?
To receive access to the full text of freely available articles, alerts, and more. You will be directed to acponline.org to complete your registration.
×