Skip to main content

Don't slam Canada for mammogram study

By H. Gilbert Welch
February 19, 2014 -- Updated 1242 GMT (2042 HKT)
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • A recent Canadian study found that mammogram screenings don't reduce cancer deaths
  • Mammographers slammed it, saying researchers cheated and screening machines were old
  • Gilbert Welch: Cheating charges unfounded, and pro-screening studies used older machines
  • Welch: The real problem is that mammography results in women getting treatment they don't need

Editor's note: H. Gilbert Welch is a professor of medicine at the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice and author of "Should I Be Tested for Cancer? Maybe Not and Here's Why" (University of California Press) and co-author of "Overdiagnosed: Making People Sick in the Pursuit of Health."

(CNN) -- We all like to think medical care is about science, but too often it's about professional interests.

Last week, a 25-year follow-up of the Canadian National Breast Screening Study was published -- one of the eight major randomized trials of screening mammography. The headline was simple: Mammogram screenings don't reduce cancer death rates.

The reaction by some American mammographers was predictable -- discredit the study. It's predictable because it is exactly what they did when they didn't like the first findings of the study published more than 20 years ago.

The effort by the American College of Radiology to discredit the Canadian trial relies on two allegations:

H. Gilbert Welch
H. Gilbert Welch

The investigators were cheating: Let's look at the background on this. Randomized trials are a critical tool for clinical researchers. Study participants are placed at random in either one group (in this case those who get mammograms) or the other (those who do not). Who is in which group is solely based on the play of chance -- a flip of a coin.

The allegation of cheating -- purposely putting women whom researchers knew had advanced cancers in the mammography group -- is an incredibly serious one. It sure was taken seriously by Canada's National Cancer Institute. It launched a two-year independent review of the entire randomization process. In 1997, the review found no credible evidence of cheating.

But that didn't stop the allegation from being trotted out last week. The new study provides evidence that randomization did exactly what it is supposed to do: It created two identical groups of women. The rate of death in the two groups was exactly the same, every year, for 25 years. That can't happen by cheating -- that can only happen when the groups are formed solely by chance.

It sounded as if Canada were Botswana. Like the nation had only recently gotten electric power and was still struggling to train doctors.
Gilbert Welch

Canada is a Third World country: More specifically, the Canadians used old mammography machines that produced inadequate images, interpreted by inadequate mammographers.

It sounded as if Canada were Botswana, as if the nation had only recently gotten electric power and was still struggling to train doctors.

For mammographers who need to point to the benefits demonstrated by earlier trials of mammography, this is an odd allegation. Why? Because the other trials used even older technology. In fact, one of the trials most favorable to screening -- the Health Insurance Plan of New York's -- dates from two decades before Canada's, in the early 1960s, when mammography technologies were primitive.

Yet, in both New York and Canada, outmoded technology did exactly what it was supposed to do. It found small breast cancers.

Armed with these two allegations, the mammographers followed a well-worn strategy: Make the allegations often and loudly enough and maybe they will stick.

To be clear, not all mammographers share this view. A new generation has openly acknowledged the problems of mammography. But many in the old guard are more likely to attack any suggestion that screening doesn't work as well as advertised, characterizing researchers who raise the possibility as "malicious" or "dangerous" and questioning the editorial policies of the journals that publish their work.

It's time to stop the unfounded allegations. It might be standard procedure for politics but not for science. Too much energy has been devoted to discrediting the Canadian study and not enough to understanding it.

To make sense of information the Canadian trial offers, you need to understand its unique design -- specifically what is being compared with what. Most of the other randomized trials simply compared regular mammography with doing nothing.

In the Canadian trial, one group received a regular physical exam of the breast -- a very careful exam performed by specially trained nurses. The other group received the same regular physical exam plus regular mammography. In other words, the trial tested the usefulness of adding mammography to a physical exam in an effort to detect abnormalities that are too small to feel.

And the trial showed that finding these "too small to feel" abnormalities doesn't help women live longer.

That's really important information. It doesn't mean that mammography can't help at all -- it is extremely challenging to standardize a physical exam of the breast across an entire population. It does mean, however, that if we are going to do mammography, we should be using it to find big, important things -- not small, unimportant things.

Further, the Canadian trial confirms that the harm of being overdiagnosed by screening mammography is real: One in five invasive cancers found by screening represents overdiagnosis. Overdiagnosis happens when cellular abnormalities meet the pathologic definition of "cancer," yet never progress to cause clinical disease. Overdiagnosed women are told they have cancer, are treated for cancer, yet their "cancer" is not destined to cause them any problems.

It is important to recognize this estimate doesn't include the smallest, earliest form of breast cancer found only by mammography -- ductal carcinoma in situ or DCIS.

If overdiagnosis is a problem in invasive cancer, you can imagine it might be a greater problem for a smaller, earlier form of cancer. Even mammography's old guard objects to having DCIS included in estimates of the amount of overdiagnosis.

Why do they object? Because so much of DCIS represents overdiagnosis, including it makes the estimate even higher.

It's time to get the science back in screening mammography and to recognize that mammographers may not be the ideal source for balanced information. It's too much like asking the dentists for balanced information about routine dental X-rays.

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.

Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of H. Gilbert Welch.

ADVERTISEMENT
Part of complete coverage on
September 13, 2014 -- Updated 1620 GMT (0020 HKT)
Joe Torre and Esta Soler say much has been achieved since a landmark anti-violence law was passed.
September 12, 2014 -- Updated 2055 GMT (0455 HKT)
David Wheeler wonders: If Scotland votes to secede, can America take its place and rejoin England?
September 12, 2014 -- Updated 2207 GMT (0607 HKT)
Jane Stoever: Society must grapple with a culture in which 1 in 3 teen girls and women suffer partner violence.
September 12, 2014 -- Updated 2036 GMT (0436 HKT)
World-famous physicist Stephen Hawking recently said the world as we know it could be obliterated instantaneously. Meg Urry says fear not.
September 12, 2014 -- Updated 2211 GMT (0611 HKT)
Bill Clinton's speech accepting the Democratic nomination for president in 1992 went through 22 drafts. But he always insisted on including a call to service.
September 12, 2014 -- Updated 2218 GMT (0618 HKT)
Joe Amon asks: What turns a few cases of disease into thousands?
September 12, 2014 -- Updated 1922 GMT (0322 HKT)
A Scottish vote for independence next week could trigger wave of separatist tension in Europe, says Frida Ghitis.
September 12, 2014 -- Updated 2212 GMT (0612 HKT)
You couldn't call him a "Bond villain" in the grand context of Dr. No or Auric Goldfinger. They were twisted visionaries of apocalypse whose ideas were to be played out at humanity's expense.
September 12, 2014 -- Updated 1705 GMT (0105 HKT)
As a Latina activist I was hurt to hear the President would delay executive action to keep undocumented immigrants with no criminal record from getting deported.
September 11, 2014 -- Updated 1721 GMT (0121 HKT)
Sally Kohn says bombing ISIS will worsen instability in Iraq and strengthen radical ideology in terrorist groups.
September 11, 2014 -- Updated 2224 GMT (0624 HKT)
Stevan Weine says the key is to stop young people from acquiring radicalized beliefs in the first place.
September 11, 2014 -- Updated 1730 GMT (0130 HKT)
Analysts weigh in on the president's plans for addressing the threat posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.
September 11, 2014 -- Updated 1227 GMT (2027 HKT)
US Currency is seen in this January 30, 2001 image. AFP PHOTO/Karen BLEIER (Photo credit should read KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images)
Lisa Gilbert says a million people have asked the SEC to make corporations disclose political contributions.
September 11, 2014 -- Updated 0455 GMT (1255 HKT)
Christi Paul says unless you've walked in an abused woman's shoes, don't judge her, help her get answers to the right questions: Why does he get to hit her? And why does nobody do anything to stop him?
September 10, 2014 -- Updated 1932 GMT (0332 HKT)
Mel Robbins says several other NFL players arrested recently in domestic violence are back on the field. Roger Goodell has shown he is clueless on abuse. He must go.
September 10, 2014 -- Updated 1759 GMT (0159 HKT)
Newt Gingrich says President Obama has a remarkable opportunity Wednesday night to mobilize support for a coalition against ISIS.
September 11, 2014 -- Updated 0041 GMT (0841 HKT)
The Texas senator says Obama should seek congressional authorization for a major bombing campaign vs. ISIS.
September 11, 2014 -- Updated 1327 GMT (2127 HKT)
Artist Prune Nourry's project reinterprets the terracotta warriors in an exhibition about gender preference in China.
September 10, 2014 -- Updated 1336 GMT (2136 HKT)
The Apple Watch is on its way. Jeff Yang asks: Are we ready to embrace wearables technology at last?
ADVERTISEMENT