Cancer Prevention Coalition Cancer Prevention Coalition  

Avoidable Exposures: Patients


Fighting for a safer environment at home, in the community, and at work

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: The American Cancer Society (ACS) profits from Mammography

More on this subject

The ACS has close connections to the mammography industry (39). Five radiologists have served as ACS presidents, and in its every move, the ACS promotes the interests of the major manufacturers of mammogram machines and films, including Siemens, DuPont, General Electric, Eastman Kodak, and Piker. The mammography industry also conducts research for the ACS and its grantees, serves on advisory boards, and donates considerable funds. DuPont also: is a substantial backer of the ACS Breast Health Awareness Program; sponsors television shows and other media productions touting mammography; produces advertising, promotional, and information literature for hospitals, clinics, medical organizations, and doctors; produces educational films; and, of course, lobbies Congress for legislation promoting availability of mammography services. In virtually all its important actions, the ACS has been and remains strongly linked with the mammography industry, while ignoring or attacking the development of viable alternatives (39). ACS promotion continues to lure women of all ages into mammography centers, leading them to believe that mammography is their best hope against breast cancer. A leading Massachusetts newspaper featured a photograph of two women in their twenties in an ACS advertisement that promised early detection results in a cure "nearly 100 percent of the time." An ACS communications director, questioned by journalist Kate Dempsey, admitted in an article published by the Massachusetts Women's Community's journal Cancer, "The ad isn't based on a study. When you make an advertisement, you just say what you can to get women in the door. You exaggerate a point. . . . Mammography today is a lucrative [and] highly competitive business" (39).

NEEDED REFORMS
Mammography is a striking paradigm of the capture of unsuspecting women by run-away powerful technological and pharmaceutical global industries, with the complicity of the cancer establishment, particularly the ACS, and the rollover mainstream media. Promotion of the multibillion dollar mammography screen-ing industry has also become a diversionary flag around which legislators and women's product corporations can rally, protesting how much they care about women, while studiously avoiding any reference to avoidable risk factors of breast cancer, let alone other cancers.

REFERENCES

1. Gofman, J. W. Preventing Breast Cancer: The Story of a Major Proven Preventable Cause of this Disease. Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, San Francisco, 1995.

2. Epstein, S. S., Steinman, D., and LeVert, S. The Breast Cancer Prevention Program, Ed. 2. Macmillan, New York, 1998.

3. Bertell, R. Breast cancer and mammography. Mothering, Summer 1992, pp. 49– 52.

4. National Academy of Sciences– National Research Council, Advisory Committee. Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR). Washington, D. C., 1972.

5. Swift, M. Ionizing radiation, breast cancer, and ataxia-telangiectasia. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 86( 21): 1571– 1572, 1994.

6. Bridges, B. A., and Arlett, C. F. Risk of breast cancer in ataxia-telangiectasia. N. Engl. J. Med. 326( 20): 1357, 1992.

7. Quigley, D. T. Some neglected points in the pathology of breast cancer, and treatment of breast cancer. Radiology, May 1928, pp. 338– 346.

8. Watmough, D. J., and Quan, K. M. X-ray mammography and breast compression. Lancet 340: 122, 1992.

9. Martinez, B. Mammography centers shut down as reimbursement feud rages on. Wall Street Journal, October 30, 2000, p. A-1.

10. Vogel, V. G. Screening younger women at risk for breast cancer. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. Monogr. 16: 55– 60, 1994.

11. Baines, C. J., and Dayan, R. A tangled web: Factors likely to affect the efficacy of screening mammography. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 91( 10): 833– 838, 1999.

12. Laya, M. B. Effect of estrogen replacement therapy on the specificity and sensitivity of screening mammography. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 88( 10): 643– 649, 1996.

13. Spratt, J. S., and Spratt, S. W. Legal perspectives on mammography and self-referral. Cancer 69( 2): 599– 600, 1992.

14. Skrabanek, P. Shadows over screening mammography. Clin. Radiol. 40: 4– 5, 1989.

15. Davis, D. L., and Love, S. J. Mammography screening. JAMA 271( 2): 152– 153, 1994.

16. Christiansen, C. L., et al. Predicting the cumulative risk of false-positive mammo-grams. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 92( 20): 1657– 1666, 2000.

17. Napoli, M. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment: The hidden pitfalls of cancer screening. Am. J. Nurs., 2001, in press.

18. Baum, M. Epidemiology versus scaremongering: The case for humane interpretation of statistics and breast cancer. Breast J. 6( 5): 331– 334, 2000.

19. Miller, A. B., et al. Canadian National Breast Screening Study-2: 13-year results of a randomized trial in women aged 50– 59 years. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 92( 18): 1490– 1499, 2000.

20. Black, W. C. Overdiagnosis: An underrecognized cause of confusion and harm in cancer screening. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 92( 16): 1280– 1282, 2000.

21. Napoli, M. What do women want to know. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. Monogr. 22: 11– 13, 1997.

22. Lerner, B. H. Public health then and now: Great expectations: Historical perspectives on genetic breast cancer testing. Am. J. Public Health 89( 6): 938– 944, 1999.

23. Gotzsche, P. C., and Olsen, O. Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable? Lancet 355: 129– 134, 2000.

24. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement. Breast cancer screening for women ages 40– 49, January 21– 23, 1997. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. Monogr. 22: 7– 18, 1997.

25. Ross, W. S. Crusade: The Official History of the American Cancer Society, p. 96. Arbor House, New York, 1987.

26. Hall, D. C., et al. Improved detection of human breast lesions following experimental training. Cancer 46( 2): 408– 414, 1980.

27. Smigel, K. Perception of risk heightens stress of breast cancer. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 85( 7): 525– 526, 1993.

28. Baines, C. J. Efficacy and opinions about breast self-examination. In Advanced Therapy of Breast Disease, edited by S. E. Singletary and G. L. Robb, pp. 9– 14. B. C. Decker, Hamilton, Ont., 2000.

29. Leight, S. B., et al. The effect of structured training on breast self-examination search behaviors as measured using biomedical instrumentation. Nurs. Res. 49( 5): 283– 289, 2000.

30. Worden, J. K., et al. A community-wide program in breast self-examination. Prev. Med. 19: 254– 269, 1990.

31. Fletcher, S. W., et al. How best to teach women breast self-examination: A randomized control trial. Ann. Intern. Med. 112(10): 772– 779, 1990.

32. Associated Press. FDA approves use of pad in breast exam. New York Times, December 25, 1995, p. 9Y.

33. Gehrke, A. Breast self-examination: A mixed message. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 92(14): 1120– 1121, 2000.

34. Thomas, D. B., et al. Randomized trial of breast self-examination in Shanghai: Methodology and preliminary results. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 89: 355– 365, 1997.

35. Baines, C. J., Miller, A. B., and Bassett, A. A. Physical examination: Its role as a single screening modality in the Canadian National Breast Screening Study. Cancer 63: 1816– 1822, 1989.

36. Lewis, T. Women's health is no longer a man's world. New York Times, February 7, 2001, p. 1.

37. Miller, A. B., Baines, C. J., and Wall, C. Correspondence. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 93(5): 396, 2001.

38. Kuroishi, T., et al. Effectiveness of mass screening for breast cancer in Japan. Breast Cancer 7( 1): 1– 8, 2000.

39. Epstein, S. S. American Cancer Society: The world's wealthiest "non-profit" institution. Int. J. Health Serv. 29( 3): 565– 578, 1999.

Excerpted from “Dangers and Unreliability of Mammography: Breast Examination is a Safe, Effective and Practical Alternative”, by Samuel S. Epstein, Rosalie Bertell, and Barbara Seaman, International Journal of Health Services, Volume 31, Number 3, 2001

CONTACT:
Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.
Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition
c/o University of Illinois at Chicago
School of Public Health, M/C 922
2121 W. Taylor Street
Chicago, IL 60612

epstein@uic.edu

 

 


Home
Losing the Cancer War
Avoidable Exposures
Consumers
Patients
Work & Environment
Avoidable Cancers
Publications and Resources
Press Room
Take Action
       
    Copyright 2003 Cancer Prevention Coalition