The newest contretemps over mammography is yet the latest eruption from a debate that has been simmering for decades, boiling over at regular intervals onto the front pages of newspapers, the floors of Congress, and the laps of expert panels (1). But a closer look at this controversy, which is officially joined here by publication of the rationale for the recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) (2), shows that its focus has shifted in a way that poses a dilemma not only for women and their doctors, but for evidence-based medicine itself.
The debate in the 1990s ...
References
- 1.
Lerner BH . The Breast Cancer Wars. New York: Oxford Univ Pr; 2001. Google Scholar - 2.
Humphrey LL ,Helfand M ,Chan BK ,Woolf SH . Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137:347-60. LinkGoogle Scholar - 3.
Olsen O ,Gøtzsche PC . Cochrane review on screening for breast cancer with mammography [Letter]. Lancet. 2001;358:1340-2. [PMID:11684218 ] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 4. Olsen O, Gotzsche PC. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001; CD001877. [PMID: 11687128] Google Scholar
- 5. Olsen O, Gøtzsche P. Systematic review of screening for breast cancer with mammography. Accessed at image.thelancet.com/lancet/extra/fullreport.pdf on 23 July 2002. Google Scholar
- 6. Miller AB. Screening for breast cancer with mammography [Letter]. Lancet. 2001; 358:2164; discussion 2167-8. [PMID: 11784651] Google Scholar
- 7.
Black WC ,Haggstrom DA ,Welch HG . All-cause mortality in randomized trials of cancer screening. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:167-73. [PMID:11830606 ] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 8.
Nyström L ,Andersson I ,Bjurstam N ,Frisell J ,Nordenskjöld B ,Rutqvist LE . Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials. Lancet. 2002;359:909-19. [PMID:11918907 ] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 9.
Berry D . Benefits and risks of screening mammography for women in their forties: a statistical appraisal. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90:1431-9. [PMID:9776408 ] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 10.
1404801 ] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 11.
Harris RP ,Helfand M ,Woolf SH ,Lohr KN ,Mulrow CD ,Teutsch SM ,et al . Current methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process. Am J Prev Med. 2001;20 3 Suppl 21-35. [PMID:11306229 ] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 12.
Haynes RB ,Devereaux PJ ,Guyatt GH . Physicians' and patients' choices in evidence based practice [Editorial]. BMJ. 2002;324:1350. [PMID:12052789 ] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 13.
Feinstein AR ,Horwitz RI . Problems in the “evidence” of “evidence-based medicine.”. Am J Med. 1997;103:529-35. [PMID:9428837 ] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 14.
Ayer A . Philosophy in the Twentieth Century. New York: Random House; 1982. Google Scholar - 15.
Lau J ,Antman EM ,Jimenez-Silva J ,Kupelnick B ,Mosteller F ,Chalmers TC . Cumulative meta-analysis of therapeutic trials for myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1992;327:248-54. [PMID:1614465 ] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 16.
Greenland S ,O'Rourke K . On the bias produced by quality scores in meta-analysis, and a hierarchical view of proposed solutions. Biostatistics. 2001;2:463-71. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Author, Article, and Disclosure Information
Current Author Address: Steven N. Goodman, MD, MHS, PhD, Division of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Suite 1103, 550 North Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21205.
Submit a Comment
Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest. Comments are moderated. Please see our information for authorsregarding comments on an Annals publication.
*All comments submitted after October 1, 2021 and selected for publication will be published online only.