Science
To save Black lives, panel urges regular mammograms for all women ages 40 to 74
To counteract growing rates of breast cancer in younger women and to reduce racial disparities in deaths, an influential panel has changed its advice and is urging most women to begin getting regular mammograms at age 40.
The new recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force say women without genetic mutations that make it extremely likely they will develop breast cancer should get their first mammogram to screen for the disease at age 40 and should continue with the exams every other year until they turn 74. The guidelines were published Tuesday in the Journal of the American Medical Assn.
Breast cancer is one of the most common cancers among women in the U.S., as well as one of the deadliest. An estimated 297,790 U.S. women were diagnosed with the disease last year, and 43,170 died of it, according to the American Cancer Society.
The task force, a group of 16 experts convened by the federal government, sparked an uproar 15 years ago when it said women could wait until 50 to begin regular, biennial breast cancer screening — much later and less frequent than what other medical groups were recommending at the time. The group’s rationale was that women in their 40s faced a low risk of breast cancer and that frequent testing of asymptomatic women in this age group caused too many to endure biopsies and other invasive procedures that were unnecessary and potentially dangerous.
The task force reaffirmed its controversial position in 2016. But when the time came to update its guidelines again, two facts stood out.
First, the incidence of invasive breast cancer in younger women, which had been slowly climbing since at least 2000, began to accelerate around 2015, rising by an average of 2% per year over the following four years.
Second, the task force recognized that among all racial and ethnic groups, Black women are most likely to be diagnosed with breast cancers that have progressed beyond stage 1, including the aggressive “triple negative” tumors that are particularly difficult to treat. Black women also have the highest mortality rate from breast cancer — about 40% higher than that of white women — “even when accounting for differences in age and stage at diagnosis,” the task force wrote in JAMA.
After analyzing data from randomized clinical trials and models based on real-world data, the panel determined that starting biennial mammograms at 40 instead of 50 would prevent an additional 1.3 breast cancer deaths per 1,000 women over the course of their screening lifetimes. For Black women, starting a decade earlier would avert an additional 1.8 deaths per 1,000 women.
“This is a big change, absolutely,” said Dr. Stamatia Destounis, chair of the American College of Radiology Commission on Breast Imaging. “We all realize that if you start to screen a woman at 40, you’re going to find the most cancers.”
Robert Smith, the American Cancer Society’s senior vice president for early cancer detection science, said the task force’s new guidance is more in line with advice from other medical organizations, including his own.
“We don’t want any woman to have a breast cancer diagnosed late if it can be avoided,” Smith said. “There’s no substitute for finding a breast cancer sooner in its natural history.”
But Ricki Fairley, founder and chief executive of Touch, the Black Breast Cancer Alliance in Annapolis, Md., said that if the goal is to reduce racial disparities, screening starting at age 40 isn’t nearly enough.
“I’m dealing with patients right now that are 24, 23, and are having breast cancer and dying,” said Fairley, a breast cancer survivor who was diagnosed at age 55. “Getting a first mammogram at age 40 is way too late for Black women.”
Reonna Berry, president and co-founder of the African American Breast Cancer Alliance in Minneapolis, criticized the task force for sticking with its advice to screen every other year.
“If we waited every two years to get a mammogram, a lot of Black women would be dead,” said Berry, who was diagnosed with breast cancer at 38 and again a few years ago, in her late 60s.
The American College of Radiology and the Society of Breast Imaging recommend annual screening starting at 40. The American Cancer Society recommends annual screenings for 45- to 54-year-olds, then screening every year or two after that. In addition, the ACR advises Black women to conduct a risk assessment and devise a screening strategy with a doctor when they are 25, Destounis said.
Smith said that although Black women under 40 are more likely than their white counterparts to be diagnosed with breast cancer, the difference isn’t large enough to warrant widespread screening.
According to data gathered by the National Cancer Institute, there are 38 breast cancer cases per 100,000 Black women between the ages of 30 and 34, compared with 32.3 cases per 100,000 white women in the same age group. For women ages 35 to 39, the respective figures are 74.8 and 69.2. In both age groups, that amounts to fewer than 6 additional breast cancers per 100,000 women.
Smith and others criticized the task force for failing to endorse screening mammograms for women over 74. As in years past, the panel determined there wasn’t enough evidence to make a recommendation one way or another.
“At the age of 75, the risk of breast cancer is very high,” Smith said.
There are 473.2 cases per 100,000 women of all racial and ethnic backgrounds between the ages of 75 and 79, and 425.8 cases for ages 80 to 84, the National Cancer Institute reports.
“There’s no reason, at least in our judgment, that women should stop screening as long as they’re in good health and expect to live another 10 years,” Smith said.
Dr. John B. Wong, a vice chair of the task force, said the lack of evidence regarding mammograms for older women is “totally frustrating.”
There are no randomized clinical trials with women in this age group, but the panel did consider a cohort study of more than 1 million Medicare patients that found no benefit to screening women ages 75 to 84, Wong said.
The situation was similar regarding the use of ultrasound or MRI as supplemental screening tools for women with dense breasts, he said.
“We know that they’re at increased risk, and we know mammography doesn’t work as well for them,” Wong said. “We would love to have some evidence to help us decide what to recommend about what they should do.”
On the question of screening frequency, the task force had enough data to act. With biennial screening between the ages of 40 and 74, there will be about 1,376 false-positive results per 1,000 women over their lifetimes, along with 14 instances of doctors finding and treating early-stage tumors that might never have become dangerous if left alone. Both would increase by about 50% if women were screened annually, Wong said.
The panel concluded that screening every other year prevents more deaths and results in more years of life gained per mammogram, producing a better balance of benefits and harms.
Dr. Julie Gralow, chief medical officer for the American Society of Clinical Oncology, said she would weigh those trade-offs differently.
“As a breast cancer doctor, I’m on the receiving end of everybody who’s diagnosed, and I think they way overplayed the harms versus the benefits,” she said, particularly the anxiety that would stem from being asked to come in for follow-up imaging. “I know for some women that’s very scary and all, but it’s almost a paternalistic kind of view.”
That notion was echoed by Karen Eubanks Jackson, founder and CEO of Sisters Network, a national breast cancer organization for Black women.
“We understand that having too many mammograms can sometimes not be in your favor,” said Jackson, a breast cancer survivor. “But as a Black woman having had it four times, I’d rather be false positive than be positive and not know it. Give me my choice.”
Gralow emphasized that the task force recommendations do not apply to women with any kind of breast abnormality.
“If you have any symptom, then you should go straight to diagnostics, and that should be done at any age,” she said.
In Smith’s ideal world, precision medicine would allow doctors to replace broad guidelines with individualized screening recommendations based on the information in each woman’s health records.
“They might say, ‘Start screening at an earlier age’ or ‘Screen every year’ or ‘You can go every other year, and that’s just as safe,’ ” Smith said. “The sooner we move in that direction, the better.”
Science
Cluster of farmworkers diagnosed with rare animal-borne disease in Ventura County
A cluster of workers at Ventura County berry farms have been diagnosed with a rare disease often transmitted through sick animals’ urine, according to a public health advisory distributed to local doctors by county health officials Tuesday.
The bacterial infection, leptospirosis, has resulted in severe symptoms for some workers, including meningitis, an inflammation of the brain lining and spinal cord. Symptoms for mild cases included headaches and fevers.
The disease, which can be fatal, rarely spreads from human to human, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Ventura County Public Health has not given an official case count but said it had not identified any cases outside of the agriculture sector. The county’s agriculture commissioner was aware of 18 cases, the Ventura County Star reported.
The health department said it was first contacted by a local physician in October, who reported an unusual trend in symptoms among hospital patients.
After launching an investigation, the department identified leptospirosis as a probable cause of the illness and found most patients worked on caneberry farms that utilize hoop houses — greenhouse structures to shelter the crops.
As the investigation to identify any additional cases and the exact sources of exposure continues, Ventura County Public Health has asked healthcare providers to consider a leptospirosis diagnosis for sick agricultural workers, particularly berry harvesters.
Rodents are a common source and transmitter of disease, though other mammals — including livestock, cats and dogs — can transmit it as well.
The disease is spread through bodily fluids, such as urine, and is often contracted through cuts and abrasions that contact contaminated water and soil, where the bacteria can survive for months.
Humans can also contract the illness through contaminated food; however, the county health agency has found no known health risks to the general public, including through the contact or consumption of caneberries such as raspberries and blackberries.
Symptom onset typically occurs between two and 30 days after exposure, and symptoms can last for months if untreated, according to the CDC.
The illness often begins with mild symptoms, with fevers, chills, vomiting and headaches. Some cases can then enter a second, more severe phase that can result in kidney or liver failure.
Ventura County Public Health recommends agriculture and berry harvesters regularly rinse any cuts with soap and water and cover them with bandages. They also recommend wearing waterproof clothing and protection while working outdoors, including gloves and long-sleeve shirts and pants.
While there is no evidence of spread to the larger community, according to the department, residents should wash hands frequently and work to control rodents around their property if possible.
Pet owners can consult a veterinarian about leptospirosis vaccinations and should keep pets away from ponds, lakes and other natural bodies of water.
Science
Political stress: Can you stay engaged without sacrificing your mental health?
It’s been two weeks since Donald Trump won the presidential election, but Stacey Lamirand’s brain hasn’t stopped churning.
“I still think about the election all the time,” said the 60-year-old Bay Area resident, who wanted a Kamala Harris victory so badly that she flew to Pennsylvania and knocked on voters’ doors in the final days of the campaign. “I honestly don’t know what to do about that.”
Neither do the psychologists and political scientists who have been tracking the country’s slide toward toxic levels of partisanship.
Fully 69% of U.S. adults found the presidential election a significant source of stress in their lives, the American Psychological Assn. said in its latest Stress in America report.
The distress was present across the political spectrum, with 80% of Republicans, 79% of Democrats and 73% of independents surveyed saying they were stressed about the country’s future.
That’s unhealthy for the body politic — and for voters themselves. Stress can cause muscle tension, headaches, sleep problems and loss of appetite. Chronic stress can inflict more serious damage to the immune system and make people more vulnerable to heart attacks, strokes, diabetes, infertility, clinical anxiety, depression and other ailments.
In most circumstances, the sound medical advice is to disengage from the source of stress, therapists said. But when stress is coming from politics, that prescription pits the health of the individual against the health of the nation.
“I’m worried about people totally withdrawing from politics because it’s unpleasant,” said Aaron Weinschenk, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin–Green Bay who studies political behavior and elections. “We don’t want them to do that. But we also don’t want them to feel sick.”
Modern life is full of stressors of all kinds: paying bills, pleasing difficult bosses, getting along with frenemies, caring for children or aging parents (or both).
The stress that stems from politics isn’t fundamentally different from other kinds of stress. What’s unique about it is the way it encompasses and enhances other sources of stress, said Brett Ford, a social psychologist at the University of Toronto who studies the link between emotions and political engagement.
For instance, she said, elections have the potential to make everyday stressors like money and health concerns more difficult to manage as candidates debate policies that could raise the price of gas or cut off access to certain kinds of medical care.
Layered on top of that is the fact that political disagreements have morphed into moral conflicts that are perceived as pitting good against evil.
“When someone comes into power who is not on the same page as you morally, that can hit very deeply,” Ford said.
Partisanship and polarization have raised the stakes as well. Voters who feel a strong connection to a political party become more invested in its success. That can make a loss at the ballot box feel like a personal defeat, she said.
There’s also the fact that we have limited control over the outcome of an election. A patient with heart disease can improve their prognosis by taking medicine, changing their diet, getting more exercise or quitting smoking. But a person with political stress is largely at the mercy of others.
“Politics is many forms of stress all rolled into one,” Ford said.
Weinschenk observed this firsthand the day after the election.
“I could feel it when I went into my classroom,” said the professor, whose research has found that people with political anxiety aren’t necessarily anxious in general. “I have a student who’s transgender and a couple of students who are gay. Their emotional state was so closed down.”
That’s almost to be expected in a place like Wisconsin, whose swing-state status caused residents to be bombarded with political messages. The more campaign ads a person is exposed to, the greater the risk of being diagnosed with anxiety, depression or another psychological ailment, according to a 2022 study in the journal PLOS One.
Political messages seem designed to keep voters “emotionally on edge,” said Vaile Wright, a licensed psychologist in Villa Park, Ill., and a member of the APA’s Stress in America team.
“It encourages emotion to drive our decision-making behavior, as opposed to logic,” Wright said. “When we’re really emotionally stimulated, it makes it so much more challenging to have civil conversation. For politicians, I think that’s powerful, because emotions can be very easily manipulated.”
Making voters feel anxious is a tried-and-true way to grab their attention, said Christopher Ojeda, a political scientist at UC Merced who studies mental health and politics.
“Feelings of anxiety can be mobilizing, definitely,” he said. “That’s why politicians make fear appeals — they want people to get engaged.”
On the other hand, “feelings of depression are demobilizing and take you out of the political system,” said Ojeda, author of “The Sad Citizen: How Politics is Depressing and Why it Matters.”
“What [these feelings] can tell you is, ‘Things aren’t going the way I want them to. Maybe I need to step back,’” he said.
Genessa Krasnow has been seeing a lot of that since the election.
The Seattle entrepreneur, who also campaigned for Harris, said it grates on her to see people laughing in restaurants “as if nothing had happened.” At a recent book club meeting, her fellow group members were willing to let her vent about politics for five minutes, but they weren’t interested in discussing ways they could counteract the incoming president.
“They’re in a state of disengagement,” said Krasnow, who is 56. She, meanwhile, is looking for new ways to reach young voters.
“I am exhausted. I am so sad,” she said. “But I don’t believe that disengaging is the answer.”
That’s the fundamental trade-off, Ojeda said, and there’s no one-size-fits-all solution.
“Everyone has to make a decision about how much engagement they can tolerate without undermining their psychological well-being,” he said.
Lamirand took steps to protect her mental health by cutting social media ties with people whose values aren’t aligned with hers. But she will remain politically active and expects to volunteer for phone-banking duty soon.
“Doing something is the only thing that allows me to feel better,” Lamirand said. “It allows me to feel some level of control.”
Ideally, Ford said, people would not have to choose between being politically active and preserving their mental health. She is investigating ways to help people feel hopeful, inspired and compassionate about political challenges, since these emotions can motivate action without triggering stress and anxiety.
“We want to counteract this pattern where the more involved you are, the worse you are,” Ford said.
The benefits would be felt across the political spectrum. In the APA survey, similar shares of Democrats, Republicans and independents agreed with statements like, “It causes me stress that politicians aren’t talking about the things that are most important to me,” and, “The political climate has caused strain between my family members and me.”
“Both sides are very invested in this country, and that is a good thing,” Wright said. “Antipathy and hopelessness really doesn’t serve us in the long run.”
Science
Video: SpaceX Unable to Recover Booster Stage During Sixth Test Flight
President-elect Donald Trump joined Elon Musk in Texas and watched the launch from a nearby location on Tuesday. While the Starship’s giant booster stage was unable to repeat a “chopsticks” landing, the vehicle’s upper stage successfully splashed down in the Indian Ocean.
-
Business1 week ago
Column: Molly White's message for journalists going freelance — be ready for the pitfalls
-
Science5 days ago
Trump nominates Dr. Oz to head Medicare and Medicaid and help take on 'illness industrial complex'
-
Politics1 week ago
Trump taps FCC member Brendan Carr to lead agency: 'Warrior for Free Speech'
-
Technology7 days ago
Inside Elon Musk’s messy breakup with OpenAI
-
Lifestyle1 week ago
Some in the U.S. farm industry are alarmed by Trump's embrace of RFK Jr. and tariffs
-
World1 week ago
Protesters in Slovakia rally against Robert Fico’s populist government
-
News1 week ago
They disagree about a lot, but these singers figure out how to stay in harmony
-
News1 week ago
Gaetz-gate: Navigating the President-elect's most baffling Cabinet pick