News

American Cancer Society recommends annual mammography starting at age 45

View on the News

New screening guidelines provide flexibility

After a little over a decade, the American Cancer Society has published guidelines for screening for the average-risk population. These guidelines provide some flexibility on the initiation of screening mammograms but strongly recommend starting at age 45. As this is an average-risk population, and the rate below this age is low and the rate of false positives is increased (due to dense breast tissue), this recommendation is based on good logic.

The question of frequency of screening is a little more challenging. The authors provide sound rationale for biennial screening after the age of 55. Unfortunately, patients are often hesitant to “skip a year” and this may be harder to enforce. Secondly, practitioners are often slow to adopt new practices as noted by changes in Pap test guidelines. Though this is a reasonable recommendation, it will take some education for patients to understand and will likely be less followed, at least in the beginning.

The final question of when to stop screening is fantastic. As mostly left-brain thinkers, we are often set on an actual age, completely disregarding the health of the patient. As the life expectancy of women in the United States is nearing 80 and many are surviving beyond that age with a high functioning status, consideration of this factor will allow for screening in women who can undergo management (if required) with favorable outcomes. Though practice changes take some time, it is likely that these recommendations will reduce unnecessary costs without impacting outcomes.

Given the substantial reduction in overall mortality, breast cancer screening is an integral part of women’s health. Providers in obstetrics and gynecology are often the primary source of education and the ordering team for breast cancer screening. Thus, it is critical for us to stay current on the recommendations for screening as well as the identification of high-risk women, allowing for well-informed decisions regarding individualized screening.

Dr. Ritu Salani is associate professor in gynecologic oncology at The Ohio State University, Columbus. Dr. Monica Hagan Vetter is a third-year resident in ob.gyn. at The Ohio State University. They reported having no financial disclosures.


 

FROM JAMA

References

Given that clinical breast exams are somewhat time consuming, “clinicians should use this time instead for ascertaining family history and counseling women regarding the importance of being alert to breast changes and the potential benefits, limitations, and harms of screening mammography,” the authors wrote.

“This new recommendation should not be interpreted to discount the potential value of clinical breast exams in low-resource settings where mammography screening may not be feasible,” they added.

In the accompanying editorial, Dr. Keating and Dr. Pace called this recommendation “a marked deviation from prior ACS guidelines and a stronger statement than that of the USPSTF,” which states only that the evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against clinical breast exams.

They noted that the majority of women who are diagnosed as having breast cancer “will do well regardless of whether their cancer was found by mammography.”

According to the most recent data, approximately 85% of women in their 40s and 50s who die of breast cancer would have died regardless of mammography screening. And even that 15% relative benefit translates to a very small absolute benefit: only 5 of 10,000 women in their 40s and 10 of 10,000 women in their 50s are likely to have a breast cancer death prevented by regular mammography, Dr. Keating and Dr. Pace wrote (JAMA 2015;314[15]:1569-71).

“It is important to remember and emphasize with average-risk women older than 40 years that there is no single right answer to the question ‘Should I have a mammogram?’ ” they wrote.

The American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute sponsored this work. Dr. Oeffinger reported having no relevant financial disclosures, and his associates reported ties to numerous industry sources.

Pages

Next Article: