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

Nananda F. Col; Moritz H. Hansen; Baruch Fischhoff; Steven G. Pauker

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

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

Article, Author, and Disclosure Information

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

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

This feature is available only to Registered Users

Subscribe/Learn More

Letters |20 April 2010

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

References

This feature is available only to Registered Users

0 Comments

See Also

Content

Information For

Services

Awards and Cover

Other Resources

Follow Annals On

Letters |20 April 2010

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

References

This feature is available only to Registered Users

0 Comments

See Also

Content

Information For

Services

Awards and Cover

Other Resources

Follow Annals On

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