New cancer screening recommendations ring in the beginning of the end for mammography

The 5 W’s and H

Over the years, I’ve disagreed with Nancy Snyderman (NBC’s medical editor) on just about every issue. Statins. Gardasil. Dietary advice. We’ve been like two sides of a coin.

But there she was on MSNBC’s Morning Joe talking about the new cancer screening recommendations. And she made a brilliant point about mammograms (another topic she and I haven’t seen eye to eye on).

But then I realized why Nancy and I were agreeing. It was because she apparently didn’t realize she was actually arguing AGAINST mammography.

I’ll explain in a minute. But first…

Say goodbye to The Big M

Snyderman was there that morning to talk about new cancer screening recommendations.

They are finally spot-on…if not entirely overdue.

And this revelation started in the most unlikely of places…a government office.

National Cancer Institute officials asked a team of scientists to review the current standards in cancer screening.

Their response… Mainstream medicine has been treating cancer like war, when it’s actually more like a strategic mission. So it’s time to put away the cannons and focus on cancer’s subtle variables.

Now back to Snyderman and mammograms.

She pointed out what happens when women with no risk factors start getting yearly mammograms at age 40. By age 70, they ARE likely to have cancers since mammographers have smashed their breasts and doused them with radiation for 30 years. (By the way, “smashed” and “doused” are my words, not hers.)

She finished up by saying we have to get smarter about who we screen and why. And went on to say that mammograms should start at 50 for women with no risk factors.

And that’s where she missed her own point — and the question NCI was really trying to answer.

It’s isn’t about WHEN we screen. It’s about HOW we screen.

If a woman begins yearly mammograms at age 50, her cumulative radiation exposure starts adding up, just as it would have at 40. So it’s putting off the inevitable. She’s still going to get YEARS of radiation exposure.

And a single year is one year too many.

There are much safer, better, smarter ways to screen for cancer when necessary. So now we need the mainstream to look seriously at those options and redefine “when necessary.”

But at least NCI is finally asking the right questions.

Sources:
“Major Changes Urged for Cancer Screening and Treatment” Press Release, University of California, San Francisco, 7/26/13, newswise.com