Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2021
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2021
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
News

Many doctors have distorted perceptions of the value of medical tests

Miriam Shuchman
CMAJ February 04, 2019 191 (5) E142-E143; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.109-5695
Miriam Shuchman
Toronto, Ont.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading
Submit a Response to This Article
Compose Response

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
References
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'. Minimum 7 characters.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'. Minimum 12 characters.
Your organization, institution's or residential address.
Statement of Competing Interests

Vertical Tabs

Jump to comment:

  • It may be good to ignore guidelines
    Paula B Gordon
    Posted on: 18 October 2019
  • Posted on: (18 October 2019)
    It may be good to ignore guidelines
    • Paula B Gordon, Radiologist, University of British Columbia

    Editor,

    You do your readership and their patients a disservice by implying that physicians who do not adhere to the Canadian Task Force’s guidelines have distorted perceptions of the value of medical tests. Dr. Lang, an emergency physician, and his colleagues on the Task Force are not experts in the fields for which they issue guidelines. They consult experts, but then are free to ignore their input. This was certainly the case with their recent “update” on guideline for breast cancer screening of women at average risk. Though they stated that they had reviewed the most up-to-date data, they did quite the opposite: They considered only randomized controlled trials (RCT) of mammography screening done from the 1960s to the early 1990s, using equipment that is now obsolete. They did not include the 2014 Pan-Canadian observational study of 2.7 million women showing a 40-44% mortality reduction among screened women.

    Randomized trial design works well for drug trials. In a technology-dependent study, by the time the study has matured to the point that mortality reduction can be measured, the technology has advanced, and that used in the trial is no longer in use. The RCTs of mammography used x-ray film mammography. This has been replaced with digital mammography, which is more sensitive at cancer detection.

    Furthermore, RCTs only demonstrate mortality reduction. Early detection of breast cancer allows 3 other important benefits NOT considered by the Task For...

    Show More

    Editor,

    You do your readership and their patients a disservice by implying that physicians who do not adhere to the Canadian Task Force’s guidelines have distorted perceptions of the value of medical tests. Dr. Lang, an emergency physician, and his colleagues on the Task Force are not experts in the fields for which they issue guidelines. They consult experts, but then are free to ignore their input. This was certainly the case with their recent “update” on guideline for breast cancer screening of women at average risk. Though they stated that they had reviewed the most up-to-date data, they did quite the opposite: They considered only randomized controlled trials (RCT) of mammography screening done from the 1960s to the early 1990s, using equipment that is now obsolete. They did not include the 2014 Pan-Canadian observational study of 2.7 million women showing a 40-44% mortality reduction among screened women.

    Randomized trial design works well for drug trials. In a technology-dependent study, by the time the study has matured to the point that mortality reduction can be measured, the technology has advanced, and that used in the trial is no longer in use. The RCTs of mammography used x-ray film mammography. This has been replaced with digital mammography, which is more sensitive at cancer detection.

    Furthermore, RCTs only demonstrate mortality reduction. Early detection of breast cancer allows 3 other important benefits NOT considered by the Task Force: the possibility to avoid mastectomy, axillary dissection and lymphedema, and even chemotherapy.

    A growing body of evidence shows that women with dense breasts are at increased risk in 2 ways: They are at increased risk of developing breast cancer (women with the densest of the 4 categories are 4-6 times higher risk than women with the lowest category; a greater risk than having a mother or sister with breast cancer), and the missing of cancer on mammograms by normal breast tissue.(1-5) Mammography is 96% sensitive in fatty breast, but misses 50% of cancers in extremely dense breasts.(6) These undetected cancers grow, and potentially metastasize until they are eventually detected when they or the metastatic nodes become palpable. These are called interval cancers, and have a worse prognosis than screen-detected cancers, in spite of modern therapies.(7-10)

    The recent Task Force Guideline considers women with dense breasts to be at average risk, and holds that there is insufficient evidence to recommend supplementary screening for women with dense breasts. Indeed, observational studies show that screening ultrasound in these women detects 3-4 small invasive, node-negative cancers per thousand women, and reduces interval cancers.(11-13) A RCT is underway in Japan,(13) but women with dense breasts should not have to die, and young families lose their wives and mothers, until it matures.

    The Task Force receives funding from the Federal Ministry of Health. Happily, physicians for the most part do not blindly follow their guidelines. The danger is that the guidelines can/do act as a default for provincial screening programs. In my opinion physicians should do what is best for their patients and ignore the Task Force’s breast cancer screening guidelines for women at average risk, and likely many other of their guidelines.

    References

    1. Engmann NJ et al. Population-Attributable Risk Proportion of Clinical Risk Factors for Breast Cancer. JAMA Oncology 2017;3: 1228-1236.

    2. Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, et al. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replace- ment therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 2003;138(3):168–175.

    3. Kerlikowske K, Hubbard RA, Miglioretti DL, et al. Compara- tive effectiveness of digital versus lm-screen mammography in community practice in the United States: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med 2011;155(8):493–502.

    4. Boyd NF, Martin LJ, Yaffe MJ, Minkin S. Mammographic density and breast cancer risk: current understanding and future prospects. Breast Cancer Res 2011;13(6):223.

    5. McCormack VA, dos Santos Silva I. Breast density and paren- chymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15(6):1159–1169.

    6. Kolb T.M., Lichy J., Newhouse J.H. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: An analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology. 2002;225:165–175.

    7. Boyd NF et al. Mammographic density and breast cancer risk: current understanding and future prospects. Breast Cancer Res 2011; 13:223

    8. Pisano ED et al. Diagnostic Performance of Digital versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening. NEJM 2005; 353:1773–1783

    9. Boyd NF et al. Mammographic Density and the Risk and Detection of Breast Cancer. NEJM 2007; 356:227–236

    10. Yaghjyan L et al. Mammographic Breast Density and Subsequent Risk of Breast Cancer in Postmenopausal Women According to Tumor Characteristics. JNCI 2011; 103:1179–1189

    11. Berg WA, et al. Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk. JAMA 2012; 307:1394-1404

    12. Weigert J.The Connecticut Experiment; The Third Installment: 4 Years of Screening Women with Dense Breasts with Bilateral Ultrasound.
    Breast J 2016;1-6

    13. Ohuchi N. Sensitivity and specificity of mammography and adjunctive ultrasonography to screen for breast cancer in the Japan Strategic Anti-cancer Randomized Trial (J-START): a randomised controlled trial. The Lancet 2015; 387:341-348

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 191 (5)
CMAJ
Vol. 191, Issue 5
4 Feb 2019
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Many doctors have distorted perceptions of the value of medical tests
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Many doctors have distorted perceptions of the value of medical tests
Miriam Shuchman
CMAJ Feb 2019, 191 (5) E142-E143; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.109-5695

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Many doctors have distorted perceptions of the value of medical tests
Miriam Shuchman
CMAJ Feb 2019, 191 (5) E142-E143; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.109-5695
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
  • Figures & Tables
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Unpacking “long COVID”
  • Canada’s long road to a vaccine injury compensation program
  • Health advocates want help handling online harassment
Show more News

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Screening & diagnostic tests
    • Patient safety & quality improvement

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions

Copyright 2021, Joule Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of the resources on this site in an accessible format, please contact us at cmajgroup@cmaj.ca.

Powered by HighWire