Many U.S. women do not get recommended mammograms

CHICAGO Thu Dec 9, 2010 9:39am EST

A doctor exams mammograms, a special type of X-ray of the breasts, which is used to detect tumours as part of a regular cancer prevention medical check-up at a clinic in Nice, south eastern France January 4, 2008. REUTERS/Eric Gaillard

A doctor exams mammograms, a special type of X-ray of the breasts, which is used to detect tumours as part of a regular cancer prevention medical check-up at a clinic in Nice, south eastern France January 4, 2008.

Credit: Reuters/Eric Gaillard

Related Topics

Photo

Under the Iron Dome

Sirens sound as rockets land deep inside Israel.  Slideshow 

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Half of U.S. women 40 and older do not get annual mammograms to screen for breast cancer, and nearly 40 percent of women 50 and older do not get the recommended biannual screenings, even though they have insurance.

The findings, presented on Thursday at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, show that many women 50 and older are not meeting the reduced breast cancer screening goals set out by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

The federal advisory panel's controversial guidelines, released late last year, recommend against routine mammograms for women in their 40s and say women in their 50s should get mammograms every other year instead of annually.

After the recommendations were released, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said the task force did not set federal policy and did not affect what services the government would pay for.

"Our study suggests that even among an insured population, many women do not meet that target, and a surprising number do not even have one mammogram in four years," Dr. Milayna Subar who led the analysis for the Medco Research Institute, a research arm of pharmacy benefit manager Medco Health Solutions Inc, said in a statement.

The study, done between 2006 and 2009, was largely completed before the advisory group released its recommendations.

The guidelines contradicted years of messages about the need for routine breast cancer screening starting at age 40, kicking off a fury of protest among breast cancer experts and advocacy groups who argued the recommendation of fewer screenings would confuse women and result in more deaths from breast cancer.

They were meant to spare women some of the worry and expense of extra tests needed to distinguish between cancer and harmless lumps.

Many groups of experts, including the American Cancer Society, stuck by their long-standing recommendation of a yearly breast exam for women starting at age 40, stressing that the breast X-rays have been proven to save lives by spotting tumors early, when they are most easily treated.

Subar said many groups feared insurance companies would stop covering yearly mammograms for women in their 50s.

"Nobody took away the coverage, but we need to use what we have," Subar said in a telephone interview.

She said the debate over mammograms may further discourage women from getting routine screenings.

Dr. Marisa Weiss, founder and president of Breastcancer.org, said in a statement the findings provide evidence that breast cancer advocates need to do a better job of encouraging women to have regular mammograms.

"Mammography detects 80 to 90 percent of breast cancers in asymptomatic women; so while it is not a perfect detection tool, it's the best we currently have for saving lives and finding cancers at an early stage so that less toxic and traumatic treatments are required," Weiss said.

Breast cancer is the second-leading cause of cancer death among U.S. women, after lung cancer. It kills 500,000 people globally every year and is diagnosed in close to 1.3 million people around the world.

(Editing by Stacey Joyce)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (2)
itzajob wrote:
Why should they? Even if their insurance pays for a mammogram (after a lengthy wait and one or two days lost from work, depending on whether a follow-up scan is required), it will not likely pay most of the costs of treatment for cancer. I know I can’t afford that, so I don’t even bother with the mammograms. Eventually, everyone has to die of something.

Dec 09, 2010 12:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Why is it so hard to believe that maybe us women do not wish to get zapped with radiation every time we end up near a doctor’s office, an airport, a dentist’s office and on and on.

I am tired of the excuse the amount of radiation exposure is so minimal and you only do it once every year or two. Well maybe the only place YOU go is the annual mammogram, but I also go to a dentist a couple of times, through airport security as needed, to a doctor’s office and then reams of tests get scheduled just to find out what might be wrong. Heck, walking down the street with the overhead power lines is now said to be a source of radiation too.

All of this exposure adds up. Hasn’t anyone in parts of the medical field yet figured out what some doctors are talking about when the words environmental allergies come up in a conversation?

It quite simply can be a build-up of toxins, chemicals, preservatives, pesticides and all the other junk thrown into every aspect of our daily life. All of this accumulation of toxins just leads to a depressed immune system – and guess what, that means poor health.

So if I die of breast cancer, then that is what may be. But I am not going to spend my entire life trying to “fight off” every other minor illness which comes along because of a depressed immune system.

Dec 09, 2010 6:52pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.