BlogWithIntegrity.com
Please subscribe to ML!
leave a comment

Stats in the News!

False pos­i­tives have hit the headlines.

Check the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, CNN — they’re every­where. Even the Ladies’ Home Journal skirts the subject.

The dis­cussion on mam­mog­raphy runs some­thing like this: studies show that cancer screening save few lives. Among women younger than 50 years, there’s a high rate of false pos­itive results. Those mis­leading tests lead to more imaging pro­ce­dures such as sono­grams and MRIs, addi­tional biopsies and, nec­es­sarily, higher screening costs.

Women are ignoring the numbers, choosing reas­surance over hard facts. Some say members of the pro-​​mammogram camp are irra­tional, even addicted.

The best response is to look care­fully at the research findings.

Two recent pub­li­ca­tions sparked the current con­tro­versy: one, a single paper in the Journal of the American Medical Asso­ci­ation and the other, a cluster of articles in the most recent Annals of Internal Med­icine. Using a variety of research tools, the authors in both journals examine the effec­tiveness of cancer screening. Here, the inves­ti­gators con­sider the risks and ben­efits of mam­mog­raphy from a medical per­spective; they don’t focus on mon­etary aspects of the issue.

The problem of false pos­i­tives in mam­mog­raphy is most-​​fully addressed in the AnnalsScreening for Breast Cancer: An Update for the U.S. Pre­ventive Ser­vices Task Force. The authors assess, among other news­worthy sub­jects (such as the value of breast self-​​examination) the potential risks and ben­efits of mam­mog­raphy. In the Results section, they delineate five sorts of mammography-​​associated harms (see “key question 2a”):

1. Radi­ation exposure – not a big deal, the exposure level’s low;

2. Pain during pro­ce­dures – women don’t mind this, at least not too much;

3. Anxiety, dis­tress and other psy­cho­logical responses – the patron­izing terms tell all;

4. False-​​positive and false-​​negative mam­mog­raphy results, addi­tional imaging, and biopsies — the subject of this and tomorrow’s posts;

5. Over-​​diagnosis – this inter­esting and, in my view, exag­gerated issue war­rants further discussion.

For now, let’s approach the problem of false pos­i­tives in mam­mog­raphy (as in #4, above).

What is a false positive?

False pos­i­tives happen in mam­mog­raphy when the images suggest the presence of a malig­nancy in a woman who doesn’t have cancer in her breast.

How often do these occur?

To their credit, the Annals authors state clearly: “pub­lished data on false-​​positive and false-​​negative mam­mog­raphy results, addi­tional imaging, and biopsies that reflect current prac­tices in the United States are limited…”

Before we can establish or even estimate the costs of false pos­i­tives in screening mam­mog­raphy, medical or eco­nomic, we need to better define those and, then, establish the fre­quency with which they occur.

Turns out, the calculation’s not so simple as you might think.

Related Posts:

Leave a Reply

 

 

 

Get Adobe Flash player