Skip to main content

Studies suggest that this $400 million mammogram tool may actually be worthless

this 400 million high tech mammogram tool may be sort of worthless phillips health watch
If it costs a lot, it must be valuable, right? It seems like a logical train of thought — at the very least, we’d like to believe that expensive objects, tools, or equipment deserve their hefty price tag because of their awesome abilities, especially when it comes to medicine. Unfortunately, in the case of one high-tech mammogram tool, this may not be quite be true.

According to the results of a new study published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the computer-aided detection (CAD) software that is now used in 90 percent of mammograms and costs the United States an additional $400 million a year in its healthcare tab makes little to no difference in helping radiologists detect breast cancer. Oops.

The large study, which involved researchers from across the United States as well as the Group Health Research Institute in Seattle examined results from 625,000 mammograms performed at 66 cancer centers in five states. According to the study leaders, “CAD improved no measure of accuracy of screening mammography: how often cancers were detected, how often they were missed, or how often something was incorrectly labeled as cancer.”

Moreover, lead author Constance D. Lehman, MD, PhD noted, “Even more troubling, when we studied the 107 radiologists who interpreted both with and without CAD, we found that a given radiologist tended to miss more cancers when using CAD than when he or she didn’t use the software. It may be that radiologists reading with CAD are overly dependent on the technology and ignore suspicious lesions if they are not marked by CAD.”

Decidedly miffed by the results, Diana Buist of Seattle’s Group Health Research Institute posited, “This is a perfect example of something that has taken off without adequate analysis of the harms and benefits.” Others pointed out that if CAD doesn’t in fact help with detecting cancer, having patients pay for the service seems to be a waste. “They should not be required to pay for it,” said Dr. Joann Elmore, a diagnostic accuracy specialist at the University of Washington who was not involved in the study.

Of course, just because CAD has not been confirmed be an effective tool doesn’t mean that women should stop getting mammograms. “If women do want to get breast-cancer screening, mammography is the best and only well-studied breast-cancer exam,” Elmore emphasized. So keep yourselves safe, ladies. But just don’t throw your money down the drain while you’re at it.

Editors' Recommendations

Lulu Chang
Former Digital Trends Contributor
Fascinated by the effects of technology on human interaction, Lulu believes that if her parents can use your new app…
Say that again? New study suggests hearing loss may be reversible

Human hearing loss is among the most concerning issues facing the earbud generation as it makes the slow march to middle age. But a recent study and forthcoming clinical trials from a Dutch company called Audion Therapeutics look to help solve the slow degeneration facing our ears once and for all, according to a new article published in The Atlantic.

The biggest hope is that humans, with the help of a new drug, will be able to regrow sensory hair cells -- something which animals like fish and birds already have the capability of doing.

Read more
All stressed out? New study suggests a night of classical music may be the cure
Stephen Goss Emmanuel

Stressed out from a long day’s work, a surprise visit from your mother-in-law, or your upcoming trip to the dentist? A new study from the Centre for Performance Science in London says you should go check out some live music.

The study measured levels of the stress hormone cortisol in the saliva of 117 attendees at two concerts from classical composer Eric Whitacre. Samples were taken from audience members before the show, during intermission, and after the show was over. The data collected indicated a universally lower stress level following the concerts.

Read more
Watching too much TV may be bad for your brain, study suggests
netflix streaming commercial hours behind the screens 110815 2

We may be the Netflix-and-chill generation today, but if we're not careful, we may become the plagued-with-serious-cognitive-issues generation in a few years. In news that is unsurprising but still a bit depressing (not to mention worrisome), your parents are finally going to be able to say "I told you so" when it comes to too much television. As it turns out, cognitive function is inversely related to time spent with eyes glued to television sets.

As per study results published in JAMA Psychiatry this week, individuals who spend the most time watching television and the least amount of time engaged in physical activity were the most likely to score poorly on cognitive tests. Led by Tina Hoang of the Northern California Institute for Research and Education at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Kristine Yaffe of the University of California, the study followed 3,247 individuals over the course of 25 years. All participants were young adults (between the ages of 18 and 30) when the study began. The researchers checked in with their subjects every five years, asking them to estimate how much TV they watched on a day-to-day basis. And every two to five years, respondents gave researchers an idea of how much exercise they got.

Read more