When to get a 2nd pathology opinion

News Flash: American Cancer Society will warn of screening’s harms.

If I had my way, there would be a moratorium on mammography screening until doctors fully understand the natural history of what they’re looking for in the breasts of women without symptoms. The term natural history is medical jargon for knowing what would happen if breast abnormalities that look cancerous under the microscope were left untreated. At least one in every three breast cancers diagnosed via mammography screening would not progress; yet virtually all are treated aggressively as if they will. From the mammography screening clinical trials, we know that this includes not only ductal carcinoma in situ but also invasive breast cancers. Until about 40 years ago, it was thought that all cancers become lifethreatening if left untreated.

There are two breast pathologists in the U.S. who have spent their professional lives distinguishing the lethal from the nonlethal. Both have published widely on this topic. Both head second pathology opinion services that deal directly with women, who send in their tissue slides, mammograms…and their payments. In the usual situation, the pathologist and the patient do not interact. Dr. David L. Page, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, and Dr. Michael Lagios, St. Mary’s Hospital, San Francisco, CA, have, no doubt, spared many a woman the overtreatment that follows in the wake of any and all mammography screening activities. The overtreatment can involve unnecessary radiation therapy, unnecessary breast removal, and a lifetime of worrying about the recurrence of a cancer that would have been better off left undetected.

Every five or so years, I write about these two second opinion services. I decided to do it again when I heard recently from a long-time reader who was diagnosed with “ductal carcinoma in situ [DCIS] with scattered calcifications and atypical cells” at one of the top cancer centers in the U.S. She was told that a total mastectomy is necessary. Instead of following the advice, she paid for a second pathology opinion from each of the above experts who both assured her that she did not have DCIS and required only periodic follow-ups. When calling me about the revised diagnosis, she said, “My joy in learning that I didn’t need a mastectomy was overshadowed by the thought of so many women who are overtreated because of mammography screening.”

Each breast pathologist describes his service below:

David L. Page, MD Breast Consultants

“Our experienced professionals have reviewed over 50,000 consultative requests for pathologists, clinicians, and patients…. Our group has had a major interest in defining and diagnosing special breast conditions that are not truly malignant, but can recognize an increased risk of later breast cancer development, as well as minimally or low malignant lesions that may be successfully treated with local therapy alone.”

Michael D. Lagios, MD The Breast Cancer Consultation Service

“The Breast Consultation Service is designed to help self-referred women with newly diagnosed breast carcinoma or atypia with formal written review of their pathology slides, mammograms and other imaging studies. No physician referral or permission is needed to access this service.”

Disclosure: When writing this article I was surprised to see that Dr. Page has a 2004 article from our newsletter HealthFacts on his home page. It addressed the latest study about overdiagnosis and overtreatment, as well as the above second opinion services. I am flattered that Dr. Page thought enough of my article to post it. I am discouraged that it’s not out of date.

Maryann Napoli Center for Medical Consumers©

Share This Article

Second pathology opinion for mammography-detected breast cancer

“Screening causes cancer.” When British surgeon and screening critic Michael Baum, MD, once expressed this opinion during a protracted media controversy over the safety of mammograms, it, no doubt, struck many as hyperbole. A recent study of mammography screening in Norway and Sweden, however, shows the comment to have a strong element of truth.

These two Scandinavian countries provide the basis for testing out a prevailing theory about the benefit of screening. Yes, many more cancers are diagnosed once a screening program is introduced, goes the theory, but they are “tomorrow’s cancers” diagnosed today. Then there are the skeptics who look at the long-range statistics and see something quite different. The increase in “tomorrow’s cancers” found in a large group of middle-aged women given regular mammograms, they reason, should eventually result in a corresponding decrease in breast cancer diagnosed later in life.

The skeptics were validated in the Scandinavian study published recently in the British electronic journal, BMJ Online First. After mammography screening was introduced in Norway for women aged 50 to 69 years, the incidence of breast cancer had increased by 54%, according to Per-Henrik Zahl and colleagues at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo. The increase was 45% after mammography screening began in Sweden in 1987. Contrary to expectations, there was no corresponding long-term reduction in the rate of women diagnosed with breast cancer. Dr. Zahl and colleagues wrote that the increases in breast cancer incidence were too large to be attributed to causes other than screening, such as hormone therapy.

The significance of these findings is this: Mammography causes many women to be diagnosed and treated for a type of breast cancer that would never produce symptoms or become life threatening if left undetected. Doctors call this overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Unfortunately, most women are not informed of this risk, as they should be, before they consent to mammography screening. A survey of U.S. women’s attitudes toward mammography screening in 2000 showed that only 6% had ever heard that mammograms can find cancers that do not progress.

Whenever researchers address the problems associated with overdiagnosis and overtreatment, they usually focus on the mammography-related massive increases in the diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), a type of microscopic cancerous lesion within the milk duct that, in most cases does not progress to life-threatening disease if left untreated. (At least 60% of DCIS will not go on to become invasive and life threatening.).

Dr. Zahl and colleagues, however, have confined their statistics solely to invasive breast cancers, which makes their results even more alarming. The only way women can protect themselves from overtreatment is to give serious thought to the decision whether or not to undergo mammography screening. The risks associated with overdiagnosis and overtreatment are significant enough to make avoiding mammography a reasonable choice for women without breast symptoms. After looking at their survey results, Dr. Zahl and colleagues concluded, “Without screening, one third of all invasive breast cancer in the age group 50-69 years would not have been detected in the patients’ lifetime. This level of overdiagnosis is larger than previously reported.”

Another element of the mammography-related overdiagnosis and overtreatment picture was published within a week of the Scandinavian study. It involves DCIS, which was rare before mammography screening was introduced in the U.S., and now, more than 55,000 women receive this diagnosis yearly. DCIS has been variously called a precancer, a cancer, not a cancer, a high-risk factor. A survey published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute showed that women are still given unnecessarily aggressive treatment for DCIS (e.g., mastectomy and removal of some of the lymph nodes at the armpit). Conversely, some are undertreated with excision alone for an uncommon type of DCIS called comedocarcinoma that will become invasive and therefore should be treated more aggressively (with radiotherapy).

What you can do:

If DCIS is diagnosed, it is advisable to get a second surgical opinion and a second pathology opinion (see below). With the exception of comedocarcinoma, pathologists are unable to identify which DCIS lesion will progress to invasive cancer and how long it will take to do so.

-To help you decide whether to have regular mammograms, go to this excellent decision-making Web site at the University of California, San Francisco www. mammography.ucsf.edu/inform/index.cfm

-Two of the country’s leading breast pathologists have long been working on ways to distinguish the forms of DCIS that will become invasive from those that will remain dormant. If diagnosed with DCIS, consider a second pathology opinion from Michael Lagios, MD, St. Mary’s Hospital, San Francisco (415) 789-0965 (www.breastcancerconsultdr.com), or David Page, MD, Vanderbilt University, Tennessee (615) 343-0072 (www. breastconsults.com). Both are breast pathologists who will deal directly with breast cancer patients.

Second Pathology Opinion for Early Breast Cancer

Why You Should Consider a Second Pathology Opinion for Ductal Carcinoma in Situ
By Maryann Napoli
(August 2003)

Ductal carcinoma in situ now represents one out of every five new cases of mammography-detected breast cancer diagnosed in the U.S. Despite its ominous name, which means cancer within the milk duct of the breast, DCIS is not always destined to become deadly. Only an estimated one-third of all cases will progress to invasive breast cancer, even if left untreated. The massive rise in DCIS is due to the increased acceptance of mammography screening. But the ability to diagnose DCIS has outpaced the knowledge of how to treat it without causing too much harm. A new study conducted in the UK, New Zealand, and Australia provides some partial answers (The Lancet, 7/12/03).

No cancer agency keeps track of how DCIS is treated in the U.S, but uncertainty is clearly reflected in the range of possibilities. This microscopic lesion can be treated with excision plus six weeks of radiation therapy, breast removal, or excision alone. There is also a great deal of uncertainty about the use of the anti-breast cancer hormonal drug tamoxifen following the initial treatment.

The new study conducted by the UK Coordinating Committee on Cancer Research set out to determine which treatment or treatment combination results in a lower rate of recurrence. All of the 1,694 participants had an excisional biopsy and were then given either no further treatment, radiation therapy, or tamoxifen, or both. The recurrence rate was lower in the women given radiation therapy, as compared to women treated with surgical excision alone. But the difference between the two groups was small:TInvasive breast cancer occurred in the affected breast of 2.5% of the women given radiation therapy, compared with 5.3% in the excision alone group.

The median follow-up for this study was only four years–too short a time to know whether radiation therapy actually extends life, or if the adverse effects of radiation itself outweigh the reduced chance of recurrence. (Earlier research showed a slight increase in cardiovascular deaths among younger women given radiation therapy.) This study will have the unfortunate effect of reinforcing the current “treat all to decrease recurrences in a tiny minority” approach to radiation. As for tamoxifen, the new study found little evidence to support its use.

Two of the country’s leading breast pathologists have long been working on ways to distinguish which forms of DCIS will become invasive and which will remain dormant. Consider a second pathology opinion from Michael Lagios, MD, San Francisco (415)789-0965 (www.breastcancerconsultdr.com), or David Page, MD, Vanderbilt University, Tennessee (615)343-0072 (www.breastconsults.com).
Both will deal directly with breast cancer patients.