Breast Cancer Screening with Mammograms at age 40? 50? Who is the USPSTF?

When the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) updated their recommendations and were against routine mammography for women aged 40 to 49, it certainly got a lot of attention. These guidelines are far different than those advocated by the American Cancer Society (ACS) which recommends screening starting at age 40 with annual mammograms.

• Who is the USPSTF?
• What does their recommendations mean for women?
• Why is there conflicting recommendations?

Who is the USPSTF?

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is an independent committee of primary care and preventive physicians that periodically reviews the latest medical research and recommends tests and screening methods that have scientifically been shown to make a difference. As a result, its recommendations are the most conservative of any national organization.

The USPSTF’s recommendations are considered the “gold standard” for determining which clinical services are preventive. They review and look at various screening tests and preventive medications to determine whether there’s proof these interventions work and that the benefits they provide outweigh the potential harm. USPSTF indicates how strongly it recommends a particular method with a letter grade designation (A, B, C, D, and I). An A recommendation means that USPSTF strongly recommends that doctors provide a particular service to eligible patients. A B rating is simply a recommendation. A C means the task force recommends against routinely providing the service, but leaves the decision to the discretion of the individual doctor and patient. A D rating means the group recommends against providing for a particular intervention. An I recommendation indicates that there is not enough evidence to determine whether to recommend for or against a particular procedure.

The USPSTF recommendations tend to be the most conservative of any national organization, because they look for interventions that have proven benefits backed by research. Therefore, promising new technologies and tests that are yet unproven (and at times remain unproven or shown to be no better than existing tests) will not be recommended. As a result, the USPSTF’s guidelines may lag behind those of other organizations. But because they set such a high standard before recommending a particular treatment, insurers should cover the tests and procedures rated A and B.

From the November 2009 update on breast cancer screening update, the USPSTF recommended:

• Against routine screening mammography in women aged 40 to 49 years. The decision to start regular, biennial screening mammography before the age of 50 years should be an individual one and take patient context into account, including the patient's values regarding specific benefits and harms. Grade: C recommendation.
  

• Recommended biennial screening mammography for women aged 50 to 74 years. Grade: B recommendation.
  

• Current evidence is insufficient to assess the additional benefits and harms of screening mammography in women 75 years or older. Grade: I Statement.
  

• Against teaching breast self-examination (BSE). Grade: D recommendation.
  

• Current evidence is insufficient to assess the additional benefits and harms of clinical breast examination (CBE) beyond screening mammography in women 40 years or older. Grade: I Statement.
  

• Insufficient evidence to assess the additional benefits and harms of either digital mammography or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) instead of film mammography as screening modalities for breast cancer. Grade: I Statement.

What does this mean for women?

First, that there is some evidence that screening between ages 40 to 49 for breast cancer among women with average risk may not be as beneficial as we previously thought. There has been evidence from other countries, like Canada, which have suggested that. However, it is highly unlikely that the American Cancer Society (ACS), being an advocacy group for cancer awareness will change their stance. They said as much with the following:

The USPSTF says that screening 1,339 women in their 50s to save one life makes screening worthwhile in that age group. Yet USPSTF also says screening 1,904 women ages 40 to 49 in order to save one life is not worthwhile. The American Cancer Society feels that in both cases, the lifesaving benefits of screening outweigh any potential harms. Surveys of women show that they are aware of these limitations, and also place high value on detecting breast cancer early.

The American Cancer Society neglects to mention the potential number of extra women harmed with the extra screening between age 40 to 49. An additional 565 women need to be screened above and beyond the 1,339 women to save one life. Within this additional group, many women will have abnormal mammograms and require breast biopsies only to discover that the results were normal. The mammogram was a false-positive.

The USPSTF found in a study in the Annals of Internal Medicine, funded by the National Cancer Institute, that screening every other year achieved over 80 percent of the benefit of screening annually while cutting the false-positive result by nearly half. While every other year screening from age 50 to 69 years resulted in about a median 16.5% (range, 15% to 23%) decrease in breast cancer deaths compared to no screening, starting mammogram at age 40 decrease the death rate further by 3 percent, but increased the costs as more false-positive cases occurred. This article helped influence their recent decision.

Realistically for women, since ACS will not change their recommendation, is that mammograms will still be a covered benefit for any woman who desires to have a mammogram as early as age 40 and can be repeated annually.

What does this mean for you? If you are worried about breast cancer, consider getting screened starting at age 40, however, the benefit of screening may not be as good as we first thought. Certainly if there is a family history of breast cancer, you should discuss with your doctor whether mammography is enough or whether a breast MRI is needed.

Why are there conflicting information?

This won't be the first time USPSTF will have different recommendations than groups like ACS or other professional medical associations. Reasonable doctors and researchers can look at the same data and have different results. It speaks to the problem of screening for cancers and the tools that we currently have. The amount of precision that we would like as patients and doctors in identifying which group of individuals truly need a screening intervention and who does not have yet to be discovered. USPSTF and ACS disagree a bit on colon cancer screening as well. For example, when it comes to colon cancer screening USPSTF gives a grade A recommendation and suggests that:

Using fecal occult blood testing, sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy in adults, beginning at age 50 years and continuing until age 75 years. The risks and benefits of these screening methods may vary.

Yet, ACS also recommends virtual colonoscopy or stool DNA testing as reasonable alternatives even though there is no proof they save lives.

Stay tuned. Medical science continues to evolve and recommendations continue to change. The the mean time, exercise regularly, don't smoke, eat five servings of fruits and vegetables daily, and you might extend your life by an additional 14 years!

Your most crucial and trusted relationship is between you and your doctor. Questions? Speak up and ask. Don't be scared. Be informed.

Secrets To Weight Loss - Part One

It's disturbing that in the United States, two-thirds of Americans are either overweight or obese. As a doctor, it is one of the most common problems I address, even if a patient doesn't ask me to. Got a cold? Feeling stressed? Want a physical? Rolled your ankle?

Has anyone ever discussed your weight? Are you concerned about your weight? What have you tried for weight loss? What did you find successful?

In this series, I'll reviewed my discussions with patients so you understand what it will take to lose weight and keep it off.

Losing weight is hard work and frankly can be a difficult and lonely experience since the majority of Americans are overweight or obese. The problem of heaviness in this country is only becoming worse.

First some basic concepts. Overweight is defined as a body mass index or BMI greater than 25 and less then 30. Obesity is a BMI greater than 30. Morbid obesity is a BMI greater than 40. Calculate your BMI. Although BMI isn't perfect, unless you are a high performing athlete (not a weekend warrior) and have significant muscle mass, BMI is a reasonable way of determining which category you fit into.

Second, the body does not lie. Unless you have some sort of medical problem like a low functioning thyroid (hypothyroidism) or other less common hormone problem, your body does not lie. If you eat exactly the same amount as you burn, then you will not lose or gain weight. Eating less and burning more consistently will cause weight loss. Eating more and burning less will result in weight gain. Simple concept. What goes in must equal what goes out to maintain weight. Any alteration in this simple equation causes weight loss or weight gain. The body does not lie.

Third, I don't think you overeat to the degree you think I do. Patients invariably tell me that they eat very little and certainly a lot less than their friends or family. While I know individuals aren't eating a Thanksgiving dinner or eating an entire large pizza for lunch daily, weight loss requires a caloric intake less than the output. Note the previous point the body does not lie. If a person did eat a lot, he would continue to gain weight, not maintain.

Fourth, you need to understand basic math. Know this number. 3500. An addition of 3500 calories equals one pound. If your body has 3500 calories left over, then you gain a pound. Burning 3500 calories, then you lose a pound. Sounds like a lot of calories, doesn't it? But it's not. If you drank a can of regular soda daily (and yes, diet doesn't count as it has zero calories), then that is an extra 130 calories per day. In 27 days less than one month you would gain a pound (3500 / 130 = 27). In one year you would be 12 pounds heavier.

Fifth, think of calories as money and your weight as a savings account. Your savings account goes up or down depending on how much you save. Put more into the bank and withdraw less? More in your savings account. Taking out more than you put in, the amount in the savings account falls. Your bank doesn't care if you deposit $100 in pennies or in a crisp C-note. Skipping the discussion of nutritional value, your body doesn't care if the 2000 calories you are supposed to ingest comes all via salad greens or the equivalent of a box of chocolates. Money is money. Calories are calories regardless of how you get them.

Sixth, your body is built for survival and isn't stupid. Go back to the previous point. Your weight is a savings account and to keep it level what goes in equals what goes out. If all of a sudden, your income gets cut then to make ends meet you must take withdrawals from your bank account. If the income doesn't return to previous levels, then the savings account continues to get smaller.

Faced with this situation of being unable to restore deposits to previous levels, would you continue to spend as much? Of course not. To avoid bankruptcy you would make hard choices like downsizing your expenses and making adjustments. As a result you slow down the outflow of money so that eventually the amount that you spend is equal to the new decreased amount coming in.

Your body is built for survival and isn't stupid either. Faced with a budget crisis, that is a diet where calories coming in is less than what is burned, initially the body hasn't had adequate time to make adjustments. It depletes its savings resulting in weight loss. But since it is built for survival, it will make adjustments necessary to that its expenditures exactly made your diet. You no longer lose weight. Your body doesn't know whether it is on a desert island or living in the United States where food is plentiful, but all it knows is that its caloric budget was cut. It needs to keep you alive until it can find its next meal. Adjustments are made. Weight loss stops. Naturally, it will deplete fat first, then muscle. So don't worry about that being a reason not to being weight loss.

Seventh, the vast majority of patients I see weren't overweight or obese to being with. Weight gain typically occurred after high school or college, job change which was less physically demanding, after pregnancy, and as they got older. Sadly this isn't the case today where children are increasingly obese and will be the first generation of Americans not to live as long as their patients because of weight related medical problems.

Finally, the success to long term weight loss is permanent reduction in calories and increase in physical activity. It's not a diet but a lifestyle change. You can lose weight in the short-term with fewer calories, which is the reason why gastric bypass works. However, long-term weight loss requires physical activity.

Union Behavior Might Be Obstacles in Transforming American Healthcare

Some interesting articles in USA Today regarding union positions about the H1N1 vaccine which suggest that transforming American medicine so that it is higher quality, improved access, and even more affordable will be extremely difficult if not impossible.

Some hospitals, healthcare organizations, and the state of New York attempted to have staff required to get the seasonal and H1N1 vaccines. Even though, Infectious Diseases Society of America recommended all healthcare workers get flu shots, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) opposed this and won.

Although patients are lining up demanding flu shots, doctors and the Centers for Disease Control want those at risk, SEIU indicates that the issue is education, rather than attaining compliance by fiat. To be completely fair, too many doctors don't get vaccinated either which is equally as disturbing. In healthcare, we make too many exceptions rather than require that the right thing gets done at all times.

While I was troubled by the behavior of SEIU, I can understand while disagree with their opposition to mandatory vaccination. It seems more of a political decision rather than scientific.

Yet, later that week SEIU was again in the news. This time upset about the distribution of flu vaccine to companies that have employed in-house doctors and clinics. Specifically, the union had a problem with companies like Goldman Sachs which received vaccinations from the City of New York in a equitable system where only those at highest risk (chronic illnesses or pregnancy) were to be immunized and the original distribution was reserved for pediatricians and obstetricians who requested vaccine. Sadly only about half of the pediatricians in New York City wanted it. As a result, the city moved on to give vaccines to those doctors caring for adults, which included the physicians working at Goldman Sachs as well as the Federal Reserve Bank, Columbia hospital, and Time. From the article:

"Wall Street banks have already taken so much from us. They've taken trillions of our tax dollars. They've taken away people's homes who are struggling to pay the bills," union official John VanDeventer wrote on the Service Employees International Union website. "But they should not be allowed to take away our health and well-being."

The union has about 2 million members, including health care workers.

Um, so wait. Healthcare workers are considered a high-risk group as defined by CDC. Naturally healthcare workers should be among the first in line to get the vaccine. If you had agreed to a mandatory vaccination program for those in the union who are healthcare workers, wouldn't that mean those in your union therefore are vaccinated and kept healthy? Getting the vaccine, which is in short supply wouldn't be a take away, but a benefit!

Having mandatory vaccinations in really only a small issue in a much larger problem. How can employers and unions get together and transform American healthcare?

To be clear, I'm not opposed to unions. One of the most successful organizations ever is Southwest Airlines, which to the surprise of many who don't know, is among the most unionized airline in the country.

I'm troubled because companies like General Motors failed because unions and employers were unable to see eye to eye. As a result, it failed because it was unable to compete with foreign competitors. Unlike the auto business, there foreign national healthcare organizations wishing to take over the US marketplace.

What it does mean, however, that making healthcare better and cheaper won't happen. Result? Government takeover or increasingly more Americans uninsured, worsening healthcare quality, and increased costs.

An Epidemic of Fear: How Panicked Parents Skipping Shots Endangers Us All

A fascinating article and equally disturbing is a fantastic article from Wired magazine. An Epidemic of Fear: How Panicked Parents Skipping Shots Endangers Us All is an objective look at the two different camps regarding vaccinations and the concern whether they are the cause of autism.

Both camps want to keep children safe. Both have very different ideas on what that means. For doctors and the medical profession, the science has been drowned out by a very effective media savvy campaign which has resulted in significant decreases in immunization rates resulting in the return of previously contained childhood illnesses like measles and pertussis.

As the internet connects more of us and removes obstacles for acquiring knowledge, it has instead reinforced and caused polarization not only in politics, but even more so in medicine.

Find out the truth on how to stay healthy and well by asking questions, listening to opposing points of view, and then making your own decision. I learn from patients. Patients learn from me.

As the article rightly notes, choosing not to have a child vaccinated isn't risk free, but rather a different set of risks occur. While I may disagree with patient's decisions, I do respect them as long as I feel they are informed about the pros and cons. I only hope that they choose based on rational thinking rather than emotional fear.

Can Doctors Provide Rational Care or Cave In? H1N1 Experience with Public Health Indicates Latter

As the country discusses providing everyone with health insurance, an even more important conversation is how to slow the rise of healthcare costs. Many studies and research point to the ability of doctors to remove waste by not performing unnecessary tests or procedures and not prescribing the latest medications which are proven to be no better than generic versions. There is a belief that much of this additional cost is due to the fee for service reimbursement system where doctors get paid more to do more.

For example, spending 30 minutes on nutritional counseling, weight loss, and exercise for one patient with hypertension doesn't pay as much as prescribing blood pressure medication for three patients in 10 minutes. In the fee for service environment, volume is key, not necessarily providing the right care or the most rational care. A recent Newsweek opinion piece by an emergency doctor showed how he evaluated a patient appropriately for a recent head injury, discussed the plan with the family, and arranged follow-up with the pediatrician all without getting a CT scan of the head. Result? Patient did fine. No radiation exposure to the brain. No additional cost to the healthcare system, insurer, or family. Everyone benefited.

While the example isn't rare, it also isn't common. Some 30 percent of tests or procedures performed in this country have been suggested to be unnecessary and added no value to improving patients' quality of life or outcomes.

In other words, if we removed the fee for service reimbursement system, then doctors would prescribe only the right care. Not too much or too little, but just right.

Or would they?

Recent articles should make us think twice. The H1N1 virus which has been demonstrated to affect those under age 25 years old and pregnant women disproportionately than the general population now has a vaccine available, albeit in short supply. This limited supply has been given to individuals not deemed at high-risk for adverse outcomes by CDC.

While the issue might be that some public county clinics received more vaccine than others (a systems or distribution problem), the bigger question is whether public county officials and doctors are willing to have honest and frank discussions about a person's need for the vaccine. Unlike doctors in the fee for service environment, these providers don't get paid more to do more. Since compensation isn't an issue, then can they talk through the fear that people have and provide the appropriate care?

Answer? Unfortunately no. Public health officials don't want to be the police and determine who should justifiably get the vaccine and who should be turned away.

In other words, if people want it, then they will get it. If public health officials can't say no appropriately, then can we expect much better for doctors in the future? Even if the fee for service reimbursement structure is removed, unclear if that will ever happen, will doctors provide rational care and advice or cave in when patients demand prescriptions based on television ads or care recommended by celebrities?

As I received my vaccine at a flu clinic, there were nurses asking each individual in line what vaccine did they want. The nurses appropriately advised those not in the high-risk groups that they would only receive the seasonal flu vaccine and not the H1N1 vaccine. There were no fights, outbursts, or fear. Patients understood that they were getting the right care. Not too much and not too little, but just right.

If America is going to solve the affordability issue of healthcare, then doctors will need to lead the way.

Based on the public clinic officials' performance, I'm even less optimistic about the medical profession's ability as a whole. While I have great confidence in my fellow medical school alumni from the University of Connecticut School of Medicine, the colleagues I work with at the Permanente Medical Group as well as the many medical bloggers I've encountered (many who follow me via Facebook or Twitter - thanks everyone!) , I have real concern about many doctors nationwide and specifically on their ability to provide rational care and not to cave in and take the easy way out when making decisions about medical care.

What does this ultimately mean? Without doctors leading the way, the only choice left is government run healthcare. If doctors can't say no based on scientific and medical evidence, then Uncle Sam will say no. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Why I Chose to Get the H1N1 Vaccine

As a practicing primary care doctor and as the only doctor in my family, I take my job very seriously. Particularly now with so much information available literally at anyone's fingertips via the internet that separating the truth from hype can be impossible for patients. The public often gravitates towards those with media publicity and exposure rather than expertise. This was reinforced by a recent Newsweek article which found Suzanne Somers recent book about nutritional cures for cancer treatment as questionable.

So certainly the amount of exposure regarding the H1N1 vaccine and who should get it and why has been getting plenty of airtime, bandwidth, and newsprint.

So, why did I chose to get the H1N1 vaccine?

Because it is the right thing to do for myself, my wife, and my children.

Here's the scenario. A new novel flu virus that targets those 25 years and younger and who are twenty six more times likely to come down with it than those 65 years and older appears out of the blue in April 2009. Healthy children, young adults, and pregnant women are disproportionately affected. Many die. The world's best scientists and researchers, using the latest in medical research, identify and sequence the virus in record time. The blueprint is handed off to pharmaceutical companies in a herculean effort to produce enough vaccine for a world fearful that another 1918 pandemic is among us where millions of young and healthy individuals died before their time.

The 2009 summer continued to see significant cases of H1N1 flu. In late October, 46 states report widespread H1N1 virus activity. Doctor visits related to influenza like illnesses stand at 7 percent with no end in sight.

Based on the latest monitoring, the overwhelming virus type is H1N1. From CDC of the nearly 5,000 specimens that tested positive for influenza, 99.8% where influenza A and nearly 70% were confirmed to be 2009 H1N1. Of the remaining 30% that weren't initially subtyped, those that were submitted to CDC for further analysis ultimately were H1N1. From CDC:

No. of specimens tested 12,943

No. of positive specimens (%) 4,855 (37.5%)
Positive specimens by type/subtype
Influenza A 4,844 (99.8%)
A (2009 H1N1) 3,378 (69.7%)
A (subtyping not performed) 1,436 (29.6%)
A (unable to subtype) 30 (0.6%)
A (H3) 0 (0.0%)
A (H1) 0 (0.0%)
Influenza B 11 (0.2%)

During week 41, influenza B viruses co-circulated at low levels with 2009 influenza A (H1N1) viruses. All subtyped influenza A viruses reported to CDC this week were 2009 influenza A (H1N1) viruses.

Finally, American medicine develops a designer vaccine that is specific for exactly the virus that is the predominate strain this flu season. The vaccine only has one virus type and not the typical cocktail of multiple viruses used in the seasonal flu vaccine. The flu season is caused by one type of virus, which the vaccine provides protection. In addition, this designer vaccine is produced using proven production techniques and given via a delivery system (injection form) used for years. Side effects are very mild and have been documented with previous vaccines.

That's the story. Here's the irony. Public response? 38 percent of parents when offered refused the H1N1 vaccine for their children.

Perhaps it is how we get our information and news. Our society is focused on 30 second soundbites. The general public lends weight to individuals with celebrity status and often equates their media exposure to scientific and medical expertise. Viruses don't care if you are Republican, Democratic, or Independent. When public figures like Bill Maher and Glenn Beck talk about their opinion, they need to state that their opinion is for entertainment only and in no way is a substitute for medical expertise (you would think that would be obvious to listeners).

As a practicing primary care doctor, I continue to worry about how the public gets its important health care information and its ability to separate hype from the truth.

Get educated. Get informed. If you refuse, then that is ok as long as it is informed refusal. If you refuse because of ignorance, then I hope you or your loved one never gets ill and dies from this preventable illness. A lifelong feeling of regret when something could have been done, but wasn't isn't a burden I wish on anyone.

Quick summary.
Novel potentially deadly virus preying on the young and healthy as well as pregnant women? Identified and sequenced.
Possible vaccination? Developed using proven techniques.
Side effects? Well known and mild.
Public response? Fear, apathy, and inaction.

My worry? That the flu season isn't as bad as what the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology forecast as one scenario of a 30% prevalence of H1N1 resulting in 90 million ill, nearly 2 million hospitalized, and at least 30,000 dead.

The best part so far with the H1N1 vaccine? The side effects of the shot are actually much better than the seasonal vaccine, which we all received last month. Children didn't have any fever. My arm wasn't sore at all.

I'm ready for this flu season as one of the front line primary care doctors.

Are you?

Still confused? Find out of the vaccination or the nasal spray is best for your children. Why people fear the H1N1 vaccine. Fast facts about H1N1 - although for the latest information go to Flu.gov or CDC.

How Effective Are Generic Drugs?

A brief ABC News video titled How Effective Are Generic Drugs? provides the truth about generic drugs. For the vast majority of individuals they are equally effective and less expensive. If you truly need a brand name drug, then obviously you'll pay more.

For many however, generic is perfectly fine.