How the Komen Foundation misled us about mammograms

Summary:The breast cancer cure group used misused data to overstate the benefits of scans.

If you're a woman who truly cares about her health, why not get a mammogram? "Early and often" is the key to successful detection, right?

Not so, say a pair of Dartmouth researchers in a recent article in the British Medical Journal. They write:


The breast cancer advocacy group Susan G. Komen for the Cure ignores these risks and uses misleading data in mammogram campaigns, the authors say.

Komen's recent ad campaign featured posters that read, "early detection saves lives. The 5-year survival rate for breast cancer when caught early is 98%. When it’s not? 23%."

Alexandra Sifferlin of TIME explains why these statistics could mislead:


The article authors say the use of 5-year survival rate stats is "hopelessly biased." It makes sense, for example, that women diagnosed with breast cancer at age 40 would be way more likely to live another five years than a woman diagnosed at 70. That's not good mammograms at work, that's just the statistics of aging.

Sifferlin continues:



Why would Komen mislead women about mammograms? I'd guess it's matter of simplifying their message. At this point mammograms are the most accessible method of breast control detection we've got, so to help the most women detect breast cancer in its early stages Komen needs a strong clear agenda. "All women should received mammograms" sounds a lot more digestible and convincing, than, "All women over 50 should get mammograms, but for those under 50 mammograms may do more harm than good, and they might not be that helpful for older women either."

This is the second major controversy for Komen this year, after they temporarily pulled funding for Planned Parenthood screenings.


Photo: Don Kennedy/Flickr

This post was originally published on

Topics: Innovation


Audrey Quinn is a contributing writer.

Contact Disclosure


Related Stories

The best of ZDNet, delivered

Subscription failed.