Response to: "[Yaffe's] Response to: 'Beyond the mammography debate: a moderate perspective'".

Anthony B Miller

doi:10.3747/co.23.3105

Abstract

In his response to Constantine Kaniklidis and to my colleague Dr. Steven Narod, Martin Yaffe makes two assertions about the Canadian National Breast Screening Study (CNBSS), one of which we have previously responded to; the other, however, is new [...]

Highlights

In his response to Constantine Kaniklidis and to my colleague Dr Steven Narod, Martin Yaffe[1] makes two assertions about the Canadian National Breast Screening Study, one of which we have previously responded to[2]; the other, is new
To take the new assertion, Yaffe states: “[It] seems to have been dangerous to be assigned to the mammography arm of cnbss[1], especially in the prevalence screening round, in which women were 46% more likely to die of breast cancer.”
Be that as it may, if differential detection is allowed, you pad the total of the prevalent cancers in the mammography arm compared with the smaller number of cancers in the control arm

Summary

Introduction

In his response to Constantine Kaniklidis and to my colleague Dr Steven Narod, Martin Yaffe[1] makes two assertions about the Canadian National Breast Screening Study (cnbss), one of which we have previously responded to[2]; the other, is new. To take the new assertion, Yaffe states: “[It] seems to have been dangerous to be assigned to the mammography arm of cnbss[1], especially in the prevalence screening round, in which women were 46% more likely to die of breast cancer.” Before accepting that possibility, it has to be considered whether the data cited by Yaffe from our 25-year follow-up report[4] support his assertion at all.

Results

Conclusion