Komen cancer foundation 'oversells mammograms'
Experts accused the breast cancer foundation of overselling pre-emptive mammography and understating the risks.
By Agence France-PresseFri, Aug 03 2012 at 5:48 AM EST
BREAST CANCER: The Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation uses misleading statistics in its pro-screening campaigns, two doctors from The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice in New Hampshire said. (Photo: Joel Saget/AFP)
Medical experts on Friday accused a major U.S. breast cancer
foundation known for its high-profile "pink ribbon" campaign of
overselling pre-emptive mammography and understating the risks.
The Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation uses misleading statistics in its pro-screening campaigns, two doctors from The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice in New Hampshire wrote in the BMJ medical journal.
"Unfortunately, there is a big mismatch between the strength of
evidence in support of screening and the strength of Komen's advocacy
for it," professors Steven Woloshin and Lisa Schwartz wrote.
They take issue with a Komen poster comparing the 98-percent five-year
survival rate for breast cancer when caught early, with a 23-percent
rate for later diagnosis.
Comparing the two figures did not say anything about the benefits of
screening, they argued, and in reality a mammogram only narrowly
decreases the chances that a 50-year-old woman will die from breast
cancer within 10 years from 0.53 percent to 0.46 percent.
Breast cancer treatments are more effective today, and some question
whether screening mammography has any benefit whatsoever, wrote the
pair.
They accused Komen of overlooking the potential harms, with up to half
of women screened annually over 10 years experiencing at least one
false alarm that requires a biopsy.
Screening also results in overdiagnosis — detecting cancers that would
never have killed or even caused symptoms in a person's lifetime, and
unnecessary treatment.
"The Komen advertisement campaign failed to provide the facts," said
the piece. "Worse, it undermined decision making by misusing statistics
to generate false hope about the benefit of mammography screening."
In 2010, a report in the New England Journal of Medicine said mammograms have only a "modest" impact on reducing breast cancer deaths.
Komen, in a response to the BMJ comment, insisted that early detection
enables early treatment, which gives the best shot at survival.
"Everyone agrees that mammography isn't perfect, but it's the best
widely available detection tool that we have today," said Chandini
Portteus, the foundation's vice president of research, evaluation and
scientific programmes.
"We've said for years that science has to do better, which is why
Komen is putting millions of dollars into research to detect breast
cancer before symptoms start, through biomarkers, for example."
In February, Komen was embroiled in a controversy over its decision to stop funding for an abortion clinic group in the United States.
