More than a Half Century of Misinformation About Breast Cancer Screening.

The following is an overview of the numerous efforts to reduce access for women to breast cancer screening. Misinformation has been promoted over the many years to suggest that screening only works for women aged 50 years and over. In fact, there are no, scientifically derived data, to support the use of the age of 50 years as a threshold for screening.

Breast cancer outcomes based on method of detection in community-based breast cancer registry.

Purpose: The impact of opportunistic screening mammography in the United States is difficult to quantify, partially due to lack of inclusion regarding method of detection (MOD) in national registries. This study sought to determine the feasibility of MOD collection in a multicenter community registry and to compare outcomes and characteristics of breast cancer based on MOD.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of breast cancer patients from a multicenter tumor registry in Missouri from January 2004 - December 2018.

Including the method of detection for breast cancer in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database is long overdue.

Debates about breast cancer screening have continued in part because the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database, which began in 1974, has never included the method of detection so that it has been impossible to determine the role that early detection has played in the major decline in deaths from breast cancer that we have seen in the US since 1990. Method of detection should be added to the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database as soon as possible.

Misinformation and Facts about Breast Cancer Screening.

Quality medical practice is based on science and evidence. For over a half-century, the efficacy of breast cancer screening has been challenged, particularly for women aged 40-49. As each false claim has been raised, it has been addressed and refuted based on science and evidence.

Misinformation About Breast Cancer Screening and the Possible Unanticipated Importance of Detecting Ductal Carcinoma In Situ.

For decades there has been an unrelenting effort to limit access to breast cancer screening based on scientifically unsupportable arguments. As each argument has been raised against screening it has been refuted by science. These issues are summarized below.

The randomized trial of mammography screening that was not-A cautionary tale.

Two randomized trials were conducted in Canada in the 1980s to test the efficacy of breast cancer screening. Neither of the trials demonstrated benefit. Concerns were raised regarding serious errors in trial design and conduct.

Design, implementation, and pitfalls of TMIST.

The early detection of breast cancer has been shown to reduce deaths through randomized, controlled trials. Numerous observational studies, failure analyses, and "incidence of death" studies have confirmed that screening reduces deaths in the general population. Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) which collects mammographic images from different angles and uses them to synthesize planes through the breast is simply another advance in mammography among others that have been made over the years.

A history of DMIST and its implications - Limited resources should be better spent.

Randomized, Controlled Trials (RCT), the most rigorous tests of efficacy, had proven that mammography screening reduces deaths by early detection. This had been validated in studies that showed that screening in the community also resulted in fewer deaths. Film mammography (FM) had been replaced by Xeroradiography (XM) which had been replaced by Screen/Film Mammography (SFM) which was being replaced by Full Field Digital Mammography (FFDM).

Major failings of trial procedures and quality of screening fatally compromise the results of the Canadian National Breast Screening Studies.

Despite overwhelming evidence of a major reduction in deaths, the debate about the efficacy of breast cancer screening has continued for over 50 years. The poor results in the Canadian National Breast Screening Studies (CNBSS) have been used to challenge the benefits shown by the other randomized, controlled trials. They continue to be used in assessing the value of breast cancer screening despite their unblinded allocation process, which first identified women with breast abnormalities and then assigned them on open lists allowing for nonrandom assignment, compromising the trials and rendering their results unreliable.

The wisdom trial is based on faulty reasoning and has major design and execution problems.

Purpose: To evaluate the design and plan of execution of the "WISDOM" trial.

Methods: The rationale and reasoning behind the WISDOM Trial were reviewed and analyzed. The published parameters of the trial were reviewed.

Lifting the fog of confusion about breast cancer screening guidelines: Surprise - it's about the money!

Large amounts of misinformation denigrating the benefits of breast cancer screening have been published over the past 50 years and continue to be published. Each effort to reduce breast cancer screening has been refuted, scientifically, but the efforts continue. The motivation has been unclear until the recent guidelines issued by the American Society of Breast Surgeons who support annual screening starting at the age of 40 contrasted with the American College of Physicians who advocated delaying screening until the age of 50 and then biennially.

Antecedents: A Half-Century of Imaging the Breast.

The field of Breast Imaging evolved because a fairly small number of dedicated individuals realized the lifesaving potential of detecting breast cancer earlier. They persevered despite persistent efforts to curtail screening. From the first attempts to produce X-ray images of the breast to magnetic resonance and digital breast tomosynthesis, investigators have worked continuously to develop better ways to detect breast cancer at a time when cure is possible, while working continuously to preserve access for women to screening.

Breast cancer screening: Where have we been and where are we going? A personal perspective based on history, data and experience.

It is important to understand the history of breast cancer screening to better understand the continuing effort to reduce access to screening. Since the randomized, controlled trials have shown a statistically significant mortality reduction for women ages 40-74, the appropriate threshold for initiating screening is age 40 with no data to support the use of the age of 50 as a threshold for screening. All women are at risk for developing breast cancer and all women should have access to screening.

Breast cancer screening: Where have we been and where are we going? A personal perspective based on history, data and experience.

It is important to understand the history of breast cancer screening to better understand the continuing effort to reduce access to screening. Since the randomized, controlled trials have shown a statistically significant mortality reduction for women ages 40-74, the appropriate threshold for initiating screening is age 40 with no data to support the use of the age of 50 as a threshold for screening. All women are at risk for developing breast cancer and all women should have access to screening.