I have suspected this for years..... How many dollars are also involved in these errors? How many jobs are being created and kept by treating cases that don't need any treatment? We are talking about scaring and cutting into women that don't need it, unacceptable.

According to the article one out of three cases would not be lethal and thus does not require treatment. So the other two out of three cases would be lethal and do require treatment.

The article implies that patients could wait to go to the doctor until they experience symptoms. Of course by then it may be too late to cure.

The study implies that it doesn't matter if you wait because the number of late-stage cancers only dropped by 8%. But even if early treatment can't cure the cancer there is still a good chance it will prolong the patient's life.

Finally, the study makes the enormous assumption that the rate of cancer has not changed. They had to make that assumption so they could calculate the difference in the number of old and new diagnoses. If the rate has changed the numbers are meaningless.

edinawater: The study does not "imply" these figures, you choose to "infer" their meaning. That's the problem with medical articles - unless you are an actuarial accountant, the numbers can lead you to any conclusion you'd like. One side says "Ban mammograms and you'll eliminate needless surgery" - "Ban PSA tests for men and you'll eliminate needless surgery." I guess both are true, but I don't want to be the one who really NEEDED it, and it wasn't detected in time. Double-edged sword.

Mammograms are a screening tool not a diagnostic tool. Treatment is based on pathology results of a biopsy, which follows a questionable mammogram. If you wait until you have symptoms, with cancer, it is frequently to late.