Archive for September, 2010
Amid the controversy over the age at which women should begin having mammograms, a study from Sweden supports starting breast cancer screening at age 40.
That conclusion goes against the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force issuedguidelines recommending against mammograms for women ages 40 to 49. The announcement of those guidelines sparked an uproar among advocacy groups. Later, the task force said it had communicated the guidelines “poorly,” and emphasized that women should still be able to choose to have mammograms at age 40 – it just shouldn’t be automatic.
A study last week in the New England Journal of Medicine suggested that mammograms are not as effective in women over 50 as previously thought.
Research presented this week in the journal Cancer compared breast cancer mortality in areas of Sweden where women 40 to 49 had been invited for mammograms against those in which women in this age group had not. There were 7.3 million people included in the group that had mammograms in ages 40 to 49, and 8.8 million people in that sample that did not.
Researchers founded about a 26 percent reduction in the breast cancer death rate attributable to mammography. In order to save one life, 1,252 women had to be invited to get mammograms in the 40 to 49-year-old age.
The benefit appeared greater for women 45 to 49 than in the 40- to 44-year-old group.
Dr. Daniel Kopans, professor of radiology at Harvard Medical School, said that this study should “end the debate” about beginning mammograms at age 50.
“The age of 50 has never had any, scientifically supportable, importance for screening. The death rate is decreased for all women who begin screening at the age of 40,” he said in a statement.
But CNNhealth.com conditions expert Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society, points out a flaw in the way that the Swedish study was done: Researchers did not take into account overdiagnosis. About 15 to 20 percent of localized breast cancers will not metastasize and don’t actually need treatment, he said.
But the study’s conclusion is nothing new, he said. The American Cancer Society still recommends screening for women ages 40 and up.
The economy grew at a slightly faster pace in the second quarter than previously thought, but the pace of growth is still painfully slow.
The nation’s gross domestic product, the broadest measure of economic activity, was upwardly revised to an annual growth rate of 1.7% in the three months ending in June, the Commerce Department said Thursday.
While a slight uptick came as good news, the minor revision wasn’t a major shocker either. Economists surveyed by Briefing.com had forecast the number to stay unchanged at 1.6%.
Less than 2% GDP growth is considered too sluggish to prompt businesses to start hiring again
“A little bit of good news is better than a little bit of bad news, but it’s still just little,” said Robert Brusca, chief economist, Fact and Opinion Economics.
Thursday’s number is the government’s third estimate for second-quarter GDP, after it sharply dropped its forecast in August from an initial 2.4% growth rate.
That revision was so dramatic, it shocked Wall Street and soon after, two thirds of economists surveyed by CNNMoney.com increased their forecasts for a double-dip recession.
But while the odds of the nation slipping back into recession are higher, they are still relatively unlikely at about one-in-four, the survey showed. But most economists are still predicting a weak economy going forward.
Overall, GDP continues to be dragged down by a widening trade deficit between the United States and foreign exporters, said Mark Vitner, senior economist with Wells Fargo.
But the report did contain a small sign of hope for the recovery, he said: spending by both consumers and businesses was up significantly from the prior quarter, and investments in new equipment and software alone were up nearly 25%.