More mammograms and better training will help prevent breast cancer deaths more than new technology
In the USA women have to wait for ages to get a mammogram, sometimes months. The panel of experts found that there is just not enough equipment around and not enough technicians who are trained on how to use the equipment.
The panel said that we are years away from seeing new technology being available to the general public. They said the new technologies will come, but meanwhile many women are dying in the USA unnecessarily.
Committee Chairman, Edward Penhoet, Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, said "In the meantime, because current mammography technology is good but imperfect, and because there are many barriers hindering women's access to mammography, too many women will die from breast cancer this year. Improving and increasing the use of current mammography technology is the most effective strategy we have right now for further reducing the toll of breast cancer."
The main reason technicians are leaving the professions and clinics are closing seems to be a fear of being sued.
In the year 2,000 there were 9,4000 mammography facilities in the USA. By the year 2003 the number had dropped to 8,600 - a fall of 8.5%. Having to wait up to five months for a mammography is not unusual in the USA these days.
In the UK technologists are trained to carry out mammographies to the same standards as fully fledged radiologists. Their training is shorter and the UK is able to quickly meet the country's demand.
HERE IS THE PRESS RELEASE FROM THE INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE
Contacts: Christine Stencel, Media Relations Officer
National Academies' Office of News and Public Information
202-334-2138; e-mail
Janet Firshein, Mary Darby, or Carol Schadelbauer
Burness Communications
301-652-1558
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Increased Access to High-Quality Mammography Needed to Reduce Cancer Deaths;
Shortage of Screening Specialists Should Be Addressed to Deal With Capacity Crisis
WASHINGTON -- While new technologies hold promise for increasing the accuracy of breast cancer detection, improving access to mammography and broadening the pool of medical personnel who can interpret mammograms offer the greatest potential for immediately reducing the number of lives lost to breast cancer in the United States, says a new report from the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council of the National Academies.
"There is a suite of new devices under evaluation -- such as ultrasound and computer-aided detection (CAD) -- that should make early detection even more effective in the future, although improvements in the next few years are likely to be incremental rather than revolutionary," said committee chair Edward Penhoet, director of science and higher education programs, Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, San Francisco, and former dean, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley.
New technologies based on protein or gene profiling hold promise for providing more personalized screenings and identifying women at greatest risk for breast cancer. However, it remains to be shown whether these technologies will yield results that are reliable enough to be useful in the early detection of breast cancer, said the committee that wrote the report. "In the meantime, because current mammography technology is good but imperfect, and because there are many barriers hindering access to mammography, too many women will die from breast cancer this year," Penhoet said. "Improving and increasing the use of current mammography technology is the most effective strategy we have right now for further reducing the toll of breast cancer."
More than 200,000 new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed this year, and more than 40,000 women will die from the disease. One of the biggest problems facing women today is that their access to breast cancer screening is endangered due to a shortage of breast imaging specialists, the report says. Each year, more than 1.2 million American women turn 40, the age when most are recommended to get their first mammogram, but there are not enough breast imaging specialists to keep up with the demand. Fewer radiologists are going into breast imaging because of heavy regulation, fear of lawsuits, and low reimbursement for long hours. At the same time, mammography facilities are closing faster than new ones are opening. Between 2000 and 2003, the number of mammography facilities operating in the United States has dropped from 9,400 to 8,600 -- an 8.5 percent decrease. As a result, women are being made to wait up to five months for mammograms in some areas, the report notes.
Studies in the United Kingdom show that trained nonphysician health care professionals can interpret results with the same accuracy and speed as radiologists. Given the failure of the U.S. health care system to keep pace with the growing demand for mammography, the committee recommended that mammography facilities should enlist specially trained nonphysician personnel to pre-screen or double-read mammograms to expand screening facilities' capacity. Nonphysician personnel would not make diagnoses, and every mammogram would be independently viewed by a breast imaging specialist.
To improve the quality of cancer screening, the United States should adopt elements of screening programs that have proved successful in Sweden, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, which have lower rates of false-positive results, the committee said. It estimated that reducing the number of false positives could cut the costs related to additional testing by $100 million a year because approximately 200,000 fewer women would be called back for follow-up work. The United States also should consider such practices as requiring double readings of mammograms, interpretation of mammograms in high-volume centers, and screening services that also integrate treatment, counseling, and other support services.
Tests are under way to assess the clinical value of ways to refine screening strategies for high-risk women and to improve the accuracy of mammographic interpretations. These methods include digital mammography, CAD, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging. The committee encourages the validation and integration of new technologies into breast cancer screening because current mammography is imperfect and does not work equally well in all women. Mammography correctly flags undetected cancers 83 percent to 95 percent of the time, but this means that up to 17 percent of tumors go undetected. Moreover, the chance of a false-positive result from a traditional mammogram is about 1 in 10.
The report notes that research and discovery phases of new technology development are proceeding well. The weak link in development is the phase in which technologies are shown to improve health outcomes and that they can be used effectively in routine clinical practice. Many cancer detection technologies that have been proposed and developed over the years have proved to be of no value to patients or medical practice, the committee noted. It urged that more attention be paid to validating technologies and building a more robust system for assessing whether they will be useful in clinical practice. Organizations that fund breast cancer research, such as the National Institutes of Health, Department of Defense, and private foundations, should support research on how best to evaluate and apply new screening and detection technologies.
Because there is so much individual variation in susceptibility to breast cancer, more refined screening strategies should be developed, the report says. Screening based on individualized genetic risk profiles for women will substantially improve early detection efforts, the report says. However, more research is needed on genetic risk factors before these biologically based technologies can be used fully to tailor detection strategies.
In addition, the actual risks of developing breast cancer need to be better communicated to women so that they can make informed decisions about screening and their lifestyle. Surveys show that older women are more likely to underestimate their risk than younger women, and that younger women tend to overestimate their risk. The National Cancer Institute, private foundations, and others should develop better tools for communicating risk to help health care providers discuss breast cancer risk more effectively with patients and the media.
The new report, Saving Women's Lives: Strategies for Improving the Early Detection and Diagnosis of Breast Cancer, expands on the work of a previous IOM and NRC committee that a few years ago examined the array of promising detection and diagnostic technologies under development. That committee's report, Mammography and Beyond: Developing Technologies for Early Detection of Breast Cancer, published in 2001, concluded that mammography -- despite its problems -- was still the best choice for screening the general population to detect breast cancer at early and treatable stages.
The new report was sponsored by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, National Cancer Institute, Apex Foundation, Josiah H. Macy Jr. Kansas Health Foundation, Carl J. Herzog Foundation, Mr. Corbin Gwaltney, and Mr. John Castle. The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council are private, nonprofit institutions that provide science and health policy advice under a congressional charter. A committee roster follows.
Pre-publication copies of Saving Women's Lives: Strategies for Improving the Early Detection and Diagnosis of Breast Cancer are available from the National Academies Press; tel. 202-334-3313 or 1-800-624-6242 or on the Internet at http://www.nap.edu. The cost of the report is $51.95 (prepaid) plus shipping charges of $4.50 for the first copy and $.95 for each additional copy. Reporters may obtain a copy from the Office of News and Public Information (contacts listed above).
[ This news release and report are available at http://national-academies.org ]
INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE
National Cancer Policy Board and
Division on Policy and Global Affairs
Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy
Committee on New Approaches to Early Detection and Diagnosis of Breast Cancer
Edward E. Penhoet, Ph.D. (chair)
Director of Science and Higher Education Programs
Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation
San Francisco
Diana B. Petitti, M.D., M.P.H. (vice chair)
Director of Research and Evaluation
Southern California Permanente Medical Group
Pasadena
Martin D. Abeloff, M.D.
Director
Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center
Johns Hopkins Hospital and Health System
Baltimore
Colin B. Begg, Ph.D.
Chairman
Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
New York City
M. Kathleen Behrens, Ph.D.
Managing Director
RS Investments
San Francisco
Richard Bohmer, M.D., M.P.H.
Assistant Professor
Harvard Business School
Boston
Christine Brunswick, J.D.
Vice President
National Breast Cancer Coalition
Washington, D.C.
Sanjiv S. Gambhir, M.D., Ph.D.
Director
Molecular Imaging Program
Stanford University
Stanford, Calif.
Robert A. Greenes, M.D., Ph.D.
Professor
Harvard School of Public Health
Boston
Jeffrey R. Marks, Ph.D.
Head of the Early Detection Research Network Center
Duke University Medical Center
Durham, N.C.
Barbara J. McNeil, M.D., Ph.D.
Head of the Department of Health Care Policy
Harvard Medical School
Boston
David C. Mowery, Ph.D.
Director
Haas School Ph.D. Program
University of California
Berkeley
Etta D. Pisano, M.D.
Chief of Breast Imaging Department of Radiology
University of North Carolina Hospitals
Chapel Hill
Glenn D. Steele, M.D., Ph.D.
President and Chief Executive Officer
Geisinger Health System
Danville, Pa.
Kirby G. Vosburgh, Ph.D.
Associate Director
Center for Integration of Medicine and Innovative Technologies
Cambridge, Mass.
William C. Wood, M.D.
Chief of Surgery
Emory University Hospital
Atlanta
INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE STAFF
Janet E. Joy, M.D.
Study Director
Mai multe mamografii ºi de mai bine de instruire va ajuta la prevenirea deceselor de cancer de sân mai mult de noua tehnologie - More mammograms and better training will help prevent breast cancer deaths more than new technology - articole medicale engleza - startsanatate