The Role of Mammography in Breast Health an Overdue Paradigm Shift
Peter Leando PhD.

Experts are publishing new evidence in peer-reviewed journals relating to the risks inherent in using mammography for breast screening. The findings are of no surprise to a growing number of doctors and specialists who have known for years that some of the cancers they have to treat are linked to the accumulative effects of mammographic radiation exposure.

Controversy has raged for years as to whether the risks related to the radiation exposure suffered from mammography are justified by the benefits gained ...... new evidence relating to the particular type of radiation used and the hard evidence relating to the clinical benefits of mammography have caused a serious re-evaluation of the justification of mammography as a screening test.

If changes for the better are to be made, then the current paradigm needs serious evaluation by examining all of the existing evidence.

We should first clarify the difference between ‘screening’ and ‘diagnostic’ mammography. Screening mammography is performed on healthy women from the age of 40 to 70 and is aimed at identifying suspicious findings, which justify further investigation. Diagnostic mammography is performed on patients who have existing justification for this test, this could be one or more risk factors, clinical symptoms, or a palpable lump.
There is little augment about mammography’s role as the ‘gold standard’ for evaluating suspicious symptoms but can we still justify subjecting women without symptoms to screening mammography and the radiation exposure which is known to be damaging.

This paper poses the question;
If Mammography is found to be an inappropriate test for screening or early diagnosis, “What alternatives do we have”?
This paper proposes a paradigm shift and suggests a new model for breast screening and the reduction of mortality from breast disease .


The risks from radiation produced by mammography are far greater than the proponents of this test are aware of or have been promoting to women. Mammography does pose a wide range of risks of which women are still uninformed.

Radiation from routine mammography cannot be directly compared to other types of X-ray like chest X-ray etc because they are very different types of radiation.

The comparisons that have been used between a chest x-ray and mammography, 1/1,000 of a rad (radiation-absorbed dose) for a chest X-ray and the 1 rad exposure for the routine four films taken of both breasts for a mammographic screening exam results in some 1,000 times greater exposure. This is considered a significant risk factor when extended over a ten year screening period and a potential accumulative dose of 10 rads.
Unfortunately this is not the major risk posed by the particular type of radiation used by mammograms, mammography X-rays use a low energy form of ionising radiation which causes greater biologic damage than the high energy X-ray. The very low energy electrons affects the density of ionisation tracks that pass through the tissue which can cause complex damage to the DNA and carcinogenic changes.

The radiation used by mammography is almost 5 times more effective at causing cancer.
(Alpha particles, possessing both charge and a large mass, deposit their energy in a relatively small volume when compared with x-rays which have neither mass nor charge. Double strand breaks or even more extensive damage to the DNA can arise from the ionisations from a single alpha particle track through a cell, whereas multiple x-ray photons would normally be required to cause similar damage. So the degree of cell killing or the probability of cancer induction, as examples of biological effects, differ for 1 Gy delivered by alpha particles compared with Gy delivered by X- ray)

Current estimates for radiation-induced cancer are based on people exposed to the high energy radiation (eg, atomic bomb survivors) or patients exposed either diagnostically or therapeutically. These cancer risk estimates are then applied to all x- ray exposures (including mammography) on the basis that the radiation weighting factor for all x-rays is equal.

The conclusion reached in a recent study published in the Journal, Radiation Research was that their findings corroborated data previously published and that this suggests that the risks associated with mammography screening may be approximately five times higher than previously assumed and that the risk–benefit relationship of mammography exposures may need to be re-examined.

Under current guidelines, premenopausal women undergoing annual screening over a ten-year period are exposed to a total of about 20 rads. The premenopausal breast is highly sensitive to radiation, each rad of exposure increasing breast cancer risk by 1 percent, resulting in a cumulative 10 percent increased risk over ten years of premenopausal screening. Risks are even greater for baseline screening at younger ages, but when an additional five fold increase of the risks are factored into the equation by the correct assessment of mammography radiation risk we have a much harder case to justify continued use of screening mammography for premenopausal women.

Each new dose adds risk, because a single x-ray photon, acting alone, is capable of causing unrepairable, permanent damage to DNA and chromosomes --- including carcinogenic mutations.

The news gets worse for the 1 to 2 percent of women who are silent carriers of the ataxia-telangiectasia gene and thus highly sensitive to the carcinogenic effects of radiation, they already have a fourfold higher risk of breast cancer from mammography; by some estimates this accounts for up to 20 percent of all breast cancers annually in the United States.

The principle of informed consent in medicine is ignored if women are not informed of the evidence relating to the risk and if women more readily consent to annual mammograms because they have been given ‘misinformation’ this is as bad as obtaining consent by deliberately blocking valid information. Women are entitled to know the full range of responsible opinion about the benefits, the risks, and the many uncertainties of mammography.

Some years ago a British surgeon blasted American doctors as "immoral" for screening women under 50 for breast cancer. Dr. Baum said the screening was "opportunistic" and did more harm than good. "Over 99 percent of premenopausal women will have no benefit from screening. Even for women over 50, there has been only a one percent biopsy rate as a result of screening in the United Kingdom. The density of the breast in younger women make mammography a highly unreliable procedure."

The United States is the only country that routinely screens premenopausal women by mammography. The U.S. also extends its screening practice by taking two or more mammograms per breast annually in postmenopausal women. This contrasts with the more restrained European practice of a single view every two to three years.

The conclusion from all the available evidence and experience gained since mammography was first introduced, is that there is a justifiable role for mammography to play in a breast cancer screening program but the role is very different from the one currently in place.


The scientific and medical evidence indicates that:
No ‘screening’ mammography is justified for premenopausal women.
A baseline mammogram may be justified at between age 50 and 60.
Accountability and responsibility should be considered in regard to all radiation exposure and the accumulative biological effects.
Reducing ionising radiation exposure from all other sources whenever possible should be practiced.
Up-to-Date and accurate information must be given to patients for informed consent. Other non invasive tests should be promoted as part of a breast screening program. Thermography, BSE. CBE. Ultrasound.
More invasive tests like MRI and PET should be explored and adapted.

An extensive literature review provides overwhelming evidence that reform and a paradigm shift is overdue. Quotes from studies include:

"The capacity of ionising radiation to produce breast cancer has been repeatedly confirmed." From Chapter 8 (at p.131), "Epidemiology and Etiology," by Professor John S. Spratt, M.D., FACS (Brown Cancer Center, University of Louisville School of Medicine, KY), Prof. William L. Donegan, M.D., FACS (Sinai Samaritan Medical Ctr., Milwaukee, WI), and Prof. Curtis P. Sigdestad, Ph.D. (Radiation Oncology Dept., Brown Cancer Center, Univ. of Louisville Sch. of Med., KY).

"The strongest evidence for a particular initiating factor in breast cancer is that for irradiation ... Evidence that other carcinogens initiate breast cancer development is extremely limited." From Chapter 9 (at p.143), "Prevention of Breast Cancer," by Richard R. Love, M.D. (Prof. of Human Oncology, Univ. of Wisconsin at Madison) and Polly A. Newcomb, Ph.D. (Asst. Professor, Dept. of Human Oncology, Univ. of Wisconsin Medical School at Madison).


Elliott, VS. Mammography debate: Who should get screened and when? American Medical News, an AMA publication. Volume 10, number 42, pages 35-37, November 10, 2003.
Kerlikowske, K. Use of mammograms in older women questionable. JAMA. December 10, 2003.

Time Magazine, April 28, 2003. Cover story: The No. 1 Killer of Women.
SEER, National Cancer Institute: Chances of developing breast cancer at a given age. de Sanjose S, et al. Prevalence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline mutations in young breast cancer patients: a population-based study. Int J Cancer 2003; 106 (4): 588-93. Furstenberger et al. Insulin like growth factors mediate breast cancer growth and proliferation. Onkologie, 2003. Volume 26, number 3, pages 290-94.
Baker L. Breast cancer detection demonstration project: Five year summary report. Cancer, 1982, volume 32, pages 194-225.
Sickles EA. Breast masses: mammographic evaluation. Radiology 1989. Pages 173- 303.
Fletcher, S W, and Elmore, J G. Mammographic Screening for Breast Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. Volume 348, no. 17, pages 1672-80. April 24, 2003. Ostbye, T. Elderly women over-screened for cancers with little measurable benefit. Annals of Family Practice. November/December issue, 2003.
Pisano, E. Digital Mammography Offers Better Breast Cancer Diagnoses. Presented at the Radiologic Society of North America annual meeting, December 2003. Research conducted at University of North Carolina School of Medicine.
Freidrich M. MRI of the breast: State of the art. European Radiology, 1998. Volume 8, pages 707-725.
Avril N, Rose CA, Schelling M, et al. Breast imaging with positron emission tomography and fluorine-18 flourodeoxyglucose: use and limitations. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2000. Volume 18, pages 3495-3502.
Avril N. Discussions in PET Imaging 2003. CMP Healthcare Media, DPI no. 621, PET and Breast Cancer.
Gautherie, M, Haehnel, P, Walter, J p, Keith, L. Long-Term Assessment of Breast Cancer Risk by Liquid-Crystal Thermal Imaging. Biomedical Thermology, pages 279-301. 1982 Alan R. Liss, Incl, 150 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10011.
Parisky, Y R, et al. Efficacy of Computerized Infrared Imaging Analysis to Evaluate Mammographically Suspicious Lesions. American Journal of Roentgenology, January 2003, 263-69.
Gautherie, M, and Gros, C M. Breast Thermography and Cancer Risk Prediction. Cancer, 1980, volume 56, 45-51.
Nyirjesy, M D, et al. Clinical Evaluation, Mammography and Thermography in the Diagnosis of Breast Carcinoma. Thermology, 1986, volume 1, 170-73.

Keyserlingk, M D, et al. Infrared Imaging of the Breast: Initial Reappraisal Using High-Resolution Digital Technology in 100 successive cases of Stage I and II Breast Cancer. The Breast Journal, volume 4, 1998, 245-51.
Bolan, P. In vivo quantification of choline compounds in the breast with 1H MR spectroscopy. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. Volume 50, Issue 6, Date: December 2003, Pages: 1134-1143.

Saputo L. Beyond Mammography. The Townsend Letter
Gofman, J. W. Preventing Breast Cancer: The Story of a Major Proven Preventable Cause of this Disease. Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, San Francisco, 1995. Epstein, S. S., Steinman, D., and LeVert, S. The Breast Cancer Prevention Program, Ed. 2. Macmillan, New York, 1998.
Bertell, R. Breast cancer and mammography. Mothering, Summer 1992, pp. 49-52. National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, Advisory Committee. Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR). Washington, D.C., 1972.
Swift, M. Ionizing radiation, breast cancer, and ataxia-telangiectasia. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 86(21): 1571-1572, 1994.
Bridges, B. A., and Arlett, C. F. Risk of breast cancer in ataxia-telangiectasia. N. Engl. J. Med. 326(20): 1357, 1992.
Quigley, D. T. Some neglected points in the pathology of breast cancer, and treatment of breast cancer. Radiology, May 1928, pp. 338-346.
Watmough, D. J., and Quan, K. M. X-ray mammography and breast compression. Lancet 340: 122, 1992.
Martinez, B. Mammography centers shut down as reimbursement feud rages on.Wall Street Journal, October 30, 2000, p. A-1.
Vogel, V. G. Screening younger women at risk for breast cancer. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. Monogr. 16: 55-60, 1994.
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.
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.
Spratt, J. S., and Spratt, S. W. Legal perspectives on mammography and self-referral. Cancer 69(2): 599-600, 1992.
Skrabanek, P. Shadows over screening mammography. Clin. Radiol. 40: 4-5, 1989. Davis, D. L., and Love, S. J. Mammography screening. JAMA 271(2): 152-153, 1994. Christiansen, C. L., et al. Predicting the cumulative risk of false-positive mammograms. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 92(20): 1657-1666, 2000.
Napoli, M. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment: The hidden pitfalls of cancer screening. Am. J. Nurs., 2001, in press.
Baum, M. Epidemiology versus scaremongering: The case for humane interpretation of statistics and breast cancer. Breast J. 6(5): 331-334, 2000.
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.
Black, W. C. Overdiagnosis: An underrecognized cause of confusion and harm in cancer screening. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 92(16): 1280-1282, 2000.
Napoli, M. What do women want to know. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. Monogr. 22: 11-13, 1997.
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.

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

Ross, W. S. Crusade: The Official History of the American Cancer Society, p. 96. Arbor House, New York, 1987.
Hall, D. C., et al. Improved detection of human breast lesions following experimental training. Cancer 46(2): 408-414, 1980.

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

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

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

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

Lewis, T. Women's health is no longer a man's world. New York Times, February 7, 2001, p. 1.
Miller, A. B., Baines, C. J., and Wall, C. Correspondence. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 93(5): 396, 2001.

Kuroishi, T., et al. Effectiveness of mass screening for breast cancer in Japan. Breast Cancer 7(1): 1-8, 2000.
Epstein, S. S. American Cancer Society: The world's wealthiest «non-profit» institution. Int. J. Health Serv. 29(3): 565-578, 1999.

Epstein, S. S., and Gross, L. The high stakes of cancer prevention. Tikkun 15(6): 33- 39, 2000.
Epstein, S. S. The Politics of Cancer Revisited. East Ridge Press, Hankins, N.Y., 1998.

Ramirez, A. Mammogram reimbursements. New York Times, February 19, 2001. John, L. Digital imaging: A marketing triumph. Breast Cancer Action Newsletter, No. 62, November-December 2000.
Tarkan, L. An update that matters? Mammography's next step is assessed. New York Times, January 2, 2001, p. D5.
Miller, A. B. The role of screening in the fight against breast cancer. World Health Forum 13: 277-285, 1992.

Mittra, I. Breast screening: The case for physical examination without mammography. Lancet 343(8893): 342-344, 1994.
Greenlee, R. T. Cancer Statistics, 2001. CA Cancer J. Clin. 51(1): 15-36, 2001.

Epstein, S,. Bertell, R,. Seaman, B,. Danger and Unreliability of Mammography. International Journal of Health Services, Volume 31, Number 3, Pages 605-615, 2001 Christiansen 2000, Cindy L. et al. "Predicting the Cumulative Risk of False-Positive Mammograms," J. of the Natl Cancer Inst Vol.92, No.20: 1657-1666.

Doody 2000, Michele M. et al. "Breast Cancer Mortality after Diagnostic Radiography: Findings from the U.S. Scoliosis Cohort," Spine Vol.25, No.16: 2052- 2063.
Elmore 1998, Joann G. et al. "Ten-Year Risk of False Positive Screening Mammograms and Clinical Breast Examinations," New England J. of Med. Vol.338, No.16: 1089-1096.
Gofman 1990, John W. Radiation-Induced Cancer from Low-Dose Exposure: An Independent Analysis. 480 pages. ISBN 0-932682-89-8. San Francisco: Committee for Nuclear Responsibility Books.
Gofman 1999, John W. Radiation from Medical Procedures in the Pathogenesis of Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease: Dose-Response Studies with Physicians per 100,000 Population. 699 pages. ISBN 0-932682-97-9. San Francisco: Committee for Nuclear Responsibility Books.
Gray 1998a, Joel E. "Lower Radiation Exposure Improves Patient Safety," in Diagnostic Imaging Vol.20, No.9: 61-64.
NRPB 1995. National Radiological Protection Board (British Government). Risk of Radiation-Induced Cancer at Low Doses and Low Dose Rates for Radiation Protection Purposes. 77 pages. ISBN 0-85951-386-6. Documents of the NRPB, Vol.6, No.1. Chilton, Didcot: NRPB.
UNSCEAR 1993, United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation: 1993 Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annexes. 922 pages. ISBN 92-1-142200-0. U.N. sales number E.94.IX.2.
Miller 2000, Anthony B. et al. "Canadian National Breast Screening Study-2: 13-Year Results of a Randomized Trial in Women Aged 50-59 Years," J. of the Natl Cancer Inst Vol.92, No.18: 1490-1499.
Woolf 1999, Steven H. "Differing Perspectives on Preventive Care Guidelines: A New Look at the Mammography Controversey," Amer. J. of Preventive Med. Vol.17, No.4: 260-268.
Wright 1995 (July 1), Charles J. "Screening Mammography and Public Health Policy: The Need for Perspective," Lancet Vol.346: 29-32.



Christiane Northrup, M.D. article : "The Best Breast Test: The Promise of Thermography"


Christiane Northrup, M.D., is a visionary pioneer and leading authority in the field of women’s wellness. A board-certified OB/GYN physician, Dr. Northrup graduated from Dartmouth Medical School and did her residency at Tufts New England Medical Center in Boston. She was also an assistant clinical professor of OB/GYN at Maine Medical Center for 20 years.

Dr. Northrup has spent her life as an advocate for women’s health and wellness, first as a practicing OB/GYN physician and now as an internationally respected writer and speaker. She writes, “I spent the first half of my life studying everything that can go wrong with a woman’s body and figuring out how to fix it. Now, I’m devoted to teaching women everything that can go right, so that vibrant health can become their daily reality.”

Dr. Northrup is the author of two New York Times best-selling books,Women’s Bodies, Women’s Wisdom and The Wisdom of Menopause, which have transformed women’s approach to health and understanding of their sacred bodies and processes. In 2005, Mother-Daughter Wisdom, her third book, was Amazon’s #1 book of the year in both parenting and mind-body health. These books have been translated into 24 languages.

 In The Secret Pleasures of Menopause and The Secret Pleasures of Menopause Playbook, Dr. Northrup outlines the crucial link between health and pleasure. Her children’s book, Beautiful Girl, brings her positive message to the youngest of girls. Her newest book, Goddesses Never Age: The Secret Prescription for Radiance, Vitality, and Wellbeing (available February 2105) will inspire women (and men) with an entirely different mindset about what it means to grow older.

Dr Northrup has appeared on The Oprah Winfrey Show, the Today Show, NBC Nightly News, The View, Rachael Ray, Good Morning America, 20/20, and The Dr. Oz Show. Her Internet radio programFlourish! is broadcast weekly on Hay House Radio. Dr. Northrup has also hosted eight successful public television specials.

 In 2013, Dr. Northrup was named one of Reader’s Digest’s “100 Most Trusted People in America.” Don’t miss any of Dr. Northrup’s cutting-edge information. Join her tribe on Facebook, Twitter, in her e-newsletter, on Flourish!, and at

Christiane Northrup, MD

Dr. Mercola article "Why Mammography is NOT an Effective Breast Cancer Screen"



DrVeronique Desaulniers - A wonderful, inspiring and supportive website for those diagnosed with breast cancer.


Dr. Thomas Hudson's website. Dr. Hudson is one of our Interpreting physicians.