Early Mammography For Women Younger Than 50 Years With A Moderate History

Early Mammography For Women Younger Than 50 Years With A Moderate History.
Mammograms given to women under 50 with a middle-of-the-road classification history of knocker cancer can spot cancers earlier and increase the odds for long-term survival, a new ponder shows. British researchers examined mammogram results for 6,710 women with several relatives with titty cancer, or at least one relative diagnosed before age 40, finding that 136 were diagnosed with the malignancy between 2003 and 2007. These women, who researchers said were perhaps not carriers of a mutated BRCA mamma cancer gene, started receiving mammograms at an earlier age than recommended by the UK National Health Service, which currently offers the screenings every three years for women between the ages of 50 and 70.

Findings showed their tumors were smaller and less martial than those in women screened at regular ages, and these women were more able to be alive 10 years after diagnosis of an invasive cancer, the researchers said. "We were not root and branch surprised at the findings," said lead researcher Stephen Duffy, a professor of cancer screening at Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry at Queen Mary University of London.

And "There is already reveal that natives screening with mammography works in women under 50, even if it is more less effective than at later ages. However, there is evidence that women with a family history have denser tit tissue, which makes mammography a tougher job, so we were not sure what to expect. We did not explicitly remove BRCA-positive women but very few with an identified mutation were recruits, and because the women had a moderate rather than an extensive family history, we fancy there were very few cases among the vast majority who had not been tested for mutations".

Duffy juxtaposed his findings against the in the air debate among US public health experts, who disagree over whether annual mammograms are vital beginning at the age of 40, which has been the standard for years. In November 2009, the US Preventive Services Task Force sparked desecrate when it revised its mammogram recommendations, suggesting that screenings can be delayed until age 50 and be given every other year.

And "There are two issues here. The first is that there is some documentation of a mortality benefit of screening women in their 40s, albeit a lesser one than in older women. The assistant is that our study does not relate to population screening, but to mammographic surveillance of women who are concerned about their kin history of breast or ovarian cancer".

So "This latter issue is less controversial. There is a ruminate in the UK about the age to start screening the general population, although there is less controversy about surveillance earlier in biography for women with a family history of breast cancer".

The study, published online Nov 18 2012 in The Lancet Oncology, enrolled women from 76 constitution centers across 34 cancer inquire into networks, 91 percent of whom were between the ages of 40 and 44 at the start. The women's middling age was 42, and slightly less than half had a relative with breast cancer diagnosed at younger than discretion 40.

About 77 percent of the breast cancer cases diagnosed during the ruminate on were detected at screening, giving the early mammograms a 79 percent sensitivity rate. Researchers predicted an 81 percent standard 10-year survival rate among participants, while survival rates for those in curb groups were forecasted at no more than 73 percent.

Marc Schwartz, an associate professor of oncology at Georgetown University Medical Center, said the go into is important because it examines a group at increased heart of hearts cancer risk for whom there are no tailored screening guidelines. Similarly this group's risk is not loaded enough to warrant the management options typically given to BRCA carriers.

So "Research like this provides our best verification - for making policy decisions about screening for this group," said Schwartz, who is also co-director of Georgetown's Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Familial Cancer Research at Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center. "However, as the authors juncture out, the results must be interpreted cautiously. This learning cannot be considered definitive. The authors do not publish on actual mortality outcomes; rather, they planned expected mortality based on the size - and grade of the tumors that were identified next page. They then compared this to nearly the same estimates from non-screened, unmatched, control groups from prior studies".