Cover up that controversy, which one can’t endure to see

BREAST CANCER / « Cover up that controversy, which one can't endure to see »*

*the title alludes to the literary expression of famous Molière, « Cover up that bosom, which I can't endure to look on », showing the religious hypocrisy of Tartuffe.

L'Humanité Dimanche of July 8 to 21 courageously denounces, in a piece entitled « COVER UP THAT CONTROVERSY, WHICH ONE CAN'T ENDURE TO SEE” , the witch-hunt initiated by the National Cancer Institute to hide from the population the existing controversy on breast cancer screening.

Find the facts here: which led this institute to build the idea of a "CSA of health" in order to "eliminate" a worldwide scientific debate, and especially the existence of divergent studies freely qualified as "fake-news". This is integrated in the "roadmap" of the INCa for the ten-year strategy of the future cancer plan.

The article in HUMANITE-DIMANCHE reminds us that this institute, bound to neutrality, has still not responded to citizens' expectations formulated in the 2016 report on screening consultation, in which we can read, on page 133, the request for a halt to this screening as it is currently carried out, and at least the provision, for women, of information also concerning the damage of this screening, instead of the current very optimistic presentation.

Women must be able, on the basis of good information, to accept or refuse screening, without feeling guilty.

The author of this article, Ms. Anne-Corinne Zimmer, rightly reminds us that "it took the mobilization of the magazine Prescrire, Que choisir organization,  the Cancer rose collective, etc., to push the INCa to introduce few phrases of information on the benefits-risks balance ».

In 2021, therefore 4 years later, the National Cancer Institute, whose role is to inform the public, has still not published a real neutral information tool for women on the benefit-risk balance of screening, it conceals over-treatment and still minimizes the number one problem of screening, which is not radiation-induced cancer, that INCa puts forward as a shield on its "enlightenment" site, but it is the over-diagnosis, which according to modern studies, could well concern one cancer out of two detected.

As the writer of the article very bravely concludes:
“Wanting to silence all controversy can only lead to more and more distrust among the population.”

The article, translated

Author: Anne-Corinne Zimmer

L'HUMANITE DIMANCHE, 8 to 21 July 2021

BREAST CANCER / « Cover up that controversy, which one can't endure to see »*

*the title alludes to the literary expression of famous Molière, « Cover up that bosom, which I can't endure to look on », showing the religious hypocrisy of Tartuffe.

Organized screening remains at the heart of the strategy to fight breast cancer for the next decade. The National Cancer Institute (INCa), the dedicated french governmental agency and committed to neutrality, has set up a website to fight against everything it considers as "fake news" on the subject.  At the risk of ignoring  plural information on a procedure that has been debated for 20 years.
Silencing the scientific controversy that has existed since the 2000s on the issue of organized breast cancer screening by mammography, is on the roadmap of the National Cancer Institute's (INCA) strategy for the next ten years (1).

Indeed, this is not stated in this way, but it is well mentioned in the national strategy for the fight against cancer 2021-2031: action 1.2 refers to "the set up of a reactive system to combat fake news".   This system is already effective with the launch of the website “Enlightenments” (2) in early June 2021, on which one will search in vain for studies diverging from the Institute's position in favor of organized breast cancer screening alone. Yet the controversy has existed for decades around the world.

The INCa further adds in its roadmap : "A reactive anti-fake news system will be structured (...). It is important to better inform public opinion, especially by using data that makes tangible the effects of prevention (international benchmarks, results of studies...). In addition, without being limited to the field of cancer, the creation of a "CSA Health"**type system will be studied, to implement rules for information in health, provided in a framework agreement with content hosts (media, social networks) to do a work of eliminating fake news identified by a college of experts."

**CSA is the French acronym of “Conseil Supérieur de l'Audiovisuel », which is the French regulator of audiovisual.


"A priori it seems to be a good idea," recalls Jean Doubovetzky, doctor and member of the collective Cancer rose, non profit organization for the information of women on the organized screening of breast cancer, except that "to appoint a college of experts who would have the power to decree that an information given in any field of health is a fake news, and to impose to the media and to the social networks its elimination, in other words its censorship" it is at least a strange idea. Therefore, how can one keep a critical thinking, if research and studies diverging from INCa's opinion are not presented?


And the precedents do not plead in favor of the INCa. At the end of the 2016 citizen consultation, which included a panel of scientists and a panel of citizens (see below), both recommended stopping organized screening and, as a second option, recommending that organized screening be stopped as currently practiced and to be completely reviewed - supported in particular by clear information for women on the benefits and risks balance. In the final report of consultation (3), the first recommendation is " to take into consideration the controversy in the information provided to women and in the information and training (initial and continuous) of professionals ", as well as " decision support tools to empower women to make their choice, i.e. to accept or refuse the invitation to participate in organized screening ".

11,000 TO 12,000 DEATHS PER YEAR

The citizens' panel of the orientation committee to improve breast cancer screening www. gathered in 2016 recalled that "(they) do not wish(wished) to keep the policy of organized screening as it is currently defined and applied” _, because it should be "accompanied by clear and neutral comprehensive information to understand the benefit-risk balance of participation and information tools for decision-making”. For the conference of professionals (researchers and physicians), they expected "a decrease in mortality from this cancer-which in France, from the 1960s to nowadays, is around 11,000 to 12,000 deaths annually”.

Organized screening abandoned in Switzerland

The INCa responded: "Abandoning screening on the pretext that its tools are perfectible would be  (...) a nonsense", while ignoring the proposals.  Two years later, information on the benefit-risk ratio was still not included in the letter of invitation to organized screening received by women over 50 years of age.

It took the mobilization of independent medical journal "Prescrire", “Que choisir” organization, Cancer rose collective and of the doctor and columnist Dominique Dupagne ( to push the INCa to introduce few phrases of information, three years later ... and only about the risks of "radiation-induced cancer", which is just one of the aspects on the benefits-risks balance. When Switzerland, for example, abandoned the extension of the organized screening on the basis of a public consultation.

The decision aid guides and other tools for forming the judgment of population are ignored by this health agency. People should not only rely on INCa, on its hunt for "fake news" and its references to its own studies, but should make the effort to visit the WHO dedicated website ( or the Cancer rose website ( ), which provides information and brochures distributed with the invitation to the organized screening in countries other than France. Refusing a scientific and human debate, which is necessarily controversial, would not be a substitute for a prevention policy, since the arguments are on both sides.

Wanting to silence all controversy can only lead to more and more distrust among the population.


(1) The implementation of organized breast cancer screening in France began in 2004.


(3) Report of the steering committee, citizen and scientific consultation (September 2016), p. 127. Available at

Cancer Rose est un collectif de professionnels de la santé, rassemblés en association. Cancer Rose fonctionne sans publicité, sans conflit d’intérêt, sans subvention. Merci de soutenir notre action sur HelloAsso.

Cancer Rose is a French non-profit organization of health care professionals. Cancer Rose performs its activity without advertising, conflict of interest, subsidies. Thank you to support our activity on HelloAsso.

The cat knew it

Cancer Rose offers you a forum for citizens. You can also testify.

Testimony of Dr Granger, Châteauroux, July 2021

Story of Mrs AH, 75 years old

My secretary stops me at the beginning of the afternoon:

"I have added a patient to your list at the end of consultation... "
- Well…

Nothing more to say, that's the rule: if a woman "felt something" and wants to see me, it’s right away...That's how it is with the breast. She hesitated... dared to call... she wants to talk, now. As much as possible don't stop that momentum.

- What brings you here today ?...
- You have seen a friend, she told me that I could... I had surgery for a very small breast cancer in 1991 [she was 45 years old at the time, no one in the family had been concerned]... I have been medically followed for a long time. And then I stopped the surveillance: I was told before the intervention that the cancer was not visible on the mammogram. So why continue to do it ? I have the impression that I feel something there (she holds her right breast, under the collarbone), it's not at all in the same place…My friend says he doesn't feel anything, but I think he wants to reassure me. He has glaucoma problems... I told him I was going to the cinema. 
-You're going to the cinema?
-... Yes

At first glance, the right upper-inner quadrant is as if filled, while the symmetrical area on the left side is empty. The hand perceives a large indurated plate, as if frozen. The diagnosis is obvious. The initial lumpectomy scar, at the union of the lower quadrants, is very small, thin and flexible. It is definitely not the same place at all. Upon contact with the ultrasonic probe, another evidence.

- Do you see something?... 
- Yes
- How big is it?...
- It's about 2 cm... (...) How long has it been since you had a mammogram?
- I stopped... It hurts. I saw my's been maybe 3 years...she told me she didn't feel anything, she asked me for a mammogram, I didn't get it. I'm tired of being sick. I'm a former nurse, I won't go to the hospital anymore. I won't go for any more tests unless I'm sick.

When the examination is over, she gets dressed. We'll say more.
- I think it's a repeat of the original problem...
- I knew it. 

Her look is direct, clear. 

-That's why I said I was going to the cinema. I didn't want to tell him unless I was sure.
A nurse once told me: "Cats can sense when their owner is sick, they stick to him". For some time now my cat has been sticking to me, so I understood. Now what to do?...
- You had a conservative treatment, and a radiotherapy, right?... 
- Yes
- The radiotherapy can only be done once...
- Yes, I know
- We have only one thing left to do : surgery. You need to have the breast removed.
- Yes. The sooner the better. I don't want a biopsy, I heard that cells can leave

I did not insist on the interest of this biopsy for the surgeon, on the "procedure", I had neither the heart nor the certainty. On the doorstep her final words:

- Thank you. At least you didn't tell me it was my fault... 
- ?... 
- How could anyone say that?
- Oh you know I've heard so many things!

That was my last consultation. Nothing afterwards to remove these words, these impressions. What does this mean for the teaching of Senology?

  • A woman "knows" when she has breast cancer. All women fear it, all women fear to feel it. Only those who have it really "know". Cats also know, their sense of smell guides them. You should always listen to your cat, its cuddle is a sure guide.
  • In the surveillance loop, there is always someone other than the woman herself, someone else who motivates her or makes her reluctant. We must enter this loop if we want to be useful. First of all, by not saying anything that could be misinterpreted, so we have to be several steps ahead of her.
    For example, don't say that "nothing was visible on the mammogram" because 20 years later this will be a demobilizing argument. Then by telling it like it is: this "tiny little cancer" minimized will become another demobilizing argument one day.
    The initial mammogram, which she had brought to me, although in silver technique in 1991, showed perfectly the cancer, its spicules and the retraction of the sub mammary fold.
  • It is important to remain calm and factual in the announcement. The genius of cancer is infinite, so there is no such thing as a " small " or " good " cancer (don't mistake the enemy for a friend), nor a cancer " that often becomes bilateral " (don't mistake a friend for an enemy). What unjustified prophecies that mask our ignorance! There is no "emergency" either, cancer is always a long story. Things will be named, defined and explained as the consultation progresses. These consultations take time, they do not happen in a waiting room or on a table corner. Radiologists who no longer see their patients and refer them to their imaging site have paradoxically made a wise decision: it prevents them from saying what they don't know!...
  • It is necessary to offer an alternative to mammography for screening or surveillance. This examination is often painful, invasive, and not very informative, since it is usually completed by an ultrasound. Ultrasound which should explain what cannot be seen or understood with X-rays... Ultrasound is indeed an alternative, in trained hands: it could even be sufficient in most cases, for screening and monitoring, but this is another debate. The ultrasound alternative, which is widely implemented, would prevent clinicians and imagers from making women feel guilty by telling them that "it's your fault" or "you had it coming," "why didn't you get the mammogram you were asked for? ".
  • Remember the last words on the doorstep, they are the most important ones, the ones that could not be uttered earlier, and which are truly liberating: this woman, despite the shock of the announcement, was grateful: I had not accused her.

Cancer Rose Comments

This testimony has caused a lot of reactions, and we receive many questions and comments from our readers. Hence this short deciphering:

The patient's strongest message is that of being tired of surveillance, because to continue surveillance is to continue to be sick. 
The examinations are necessary when you are sick, that's what the patient expressed. 
This is an interesting point in the context of screening women with no symptoms, forgetting that screening is intended for healthy people, who have no complaints.
Here the situation is different in that the patient has been ill and has developed cancer, a situation for which annual monitoring is actually recommended, but this is her opinion, and the opinions, choices and preferences of patients must be heard.

The doctor's strongest message: refusal to accuse, refusal to make patients feel guilty. The patient liked that the doctor did not blame her ("you had it coming, you should have done your follow-up"; this is what women hear, although it cannot be said that this would have changed the situation much).
Gratitude of the patient for a too rare attitude of the medical profession: not to reproach a patient for a defect of a monitoring which she judged too long, tiresome, uncomfortable and distressing. 
This removal of guilt is extremely important, because we also see this feeling of guilt in healthy women who do not undergo screening, even though they are not suffering from anything.

On the substance, the doctor is right to point out that "the genius of cancer is infinite, so there is no "small" or "good" cancer". In fact, it is impossible to know if this is a recurrence of the disease, so long after, or if it is a new disease (another location in the breast than the first), if the mammo would have changed much (discovery of the mass immediately voluminous). It is also impossible to eliminate an induced disease (multiplication of mammograms, second radiation-induced cancer since it occurred in the same treated breast, long afterwards).

One will never know, hence the importance of respecting the choice of the patient, to leave the pattern "cancer, sooner taken better is", because, as the colleague writes it, the evolution of cancer does not work according to this automatismpre-...designed by an intellectually comfortable theory (read:
Looking for alternatives to the sacrosanct mammogram in which so many hopes are based and yet which "misses" genuine cancers is also a line of reflection.

Cancer Rose est un collectif de professionnels de la santé, rassemblés en association. Cancer Rose fonctionne sans publicité, sans conflit d’intérêt, sans subvention. Merci de soutenir notre action sur HelloAsso.

Cancer Rose is a French non-profit organization of health care professionals. Cancer Rose performs its activity without advertising, conflict of interest, subsidies. Thank you to support our activity on HelloAsso.

Other information tools

Harding Center of literacy

Download / Télécharger

Harding Center for Risk Literacy, University of Potsdam, Faculty of Health Sciences

5 out of every 1,000 women aged 50 and over without screening and 4 out of every 1,000 women with screening died from breast cancer over a time period of approximately 11 years.
The numbers in the fact box are rounded. The numbers are calculated from eight studies that included a total of about 600,000 participants [1].
Screening did not affect the total number of deaths when all potential causes of death are considered. About 84 out of every 1,000 women died in total, independent of whether they were screened or not.
Furthermore, women who receive false alarms (positive test results that turn out to be false positives) can suffer from psychological distress, including anxiety and uncertainty, for years afterward [1].
A positive result from a mammography does not automatically mean that a woman has cancer. Mammography screening also detects preliminary stages of breast cancer, such as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which is characterized by abnormal cells in the mammary ducts that have not spread to other tissue (non-invasive). In some women DCIS remains harmless; in others it develops into an invasive tumor, which can be life-threatening [4].
Any screening can lead to overdiagnosis. In the case of breast cancer, this means that women are diagnosed with breast cancers that would have remained undetected without the screening. One instance of these are small tumors that grow slowly or not at all (non-progressive cancer) and might never have caused any complaints. Because it is difficult for physicians to assess whether a tumor will continue to grow, they often advise their patients to receive treatment.
Overdiagnosis often leads to overtreatment, which means unnecessary surgery or radiation [4].

[1] GøtzschePC, JørgensenKJ. Dépistage du cancer du sein par mammographie. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2013(6) doi : 10.1002/14651858.CD001877.pub5.
[4] IQWIG. Einladungsschreiben und Entscheidungshilfe zum Mammographie-Screening 2014. [

OMS - a short guide about screening programmes

Download / Télécharger

WHO Screening programmes: a short guide. Increase effectiveness, maximize benefits and minimize harm. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2020.,-maximize-benefits-and-minimize-harm-2020

« Screening programmes should provide unbiased and easy-to-understand informa­tion so that people can make an informed decision on whether to participate in screening.
Both laypeople and clinicians tend to overestimate the benefits of screening and underestimate the harm of screening. Training personnel on communicating risk and tools such as infographics, videos and decision aids can be used to facilitate understanding and promote informed consent and evidence-informed practice (Fig. 15, p38). » « Fig. 15. Use of infographic to illustrate overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening, » (Above)


Download / Télécharger

Cantaskforce - Canadian Task force on Preventive Healthcare, established by the Public Health Agency of Canada
« Low-certainty evidence indicates that screening for breast cancer with mammography results in a modest reduction in breast cancer mortality for women aged 40 to 74 years with the absolute benefit lowest for women less than 50 years of age. Screening leads to overdiagnosis resulting in unnecessary treatment of cancer that would not have caused harm in a woman’s lifetime, as well as physical and psychological consequences from false positives. »

« Screening is a personal decision. It is important to understand and weigh the benefits and harms for women in your age group (as shown below) with your health care provider. This will help you get a better understanding of the issues so that you can decide what is best for you. Some women may wish to not be screened if they are concerned about potential harms. »

Canada Booklet

Download / Télécharger

Information on Mammography for Women Aged 40 and Older: A Decision Aid for Breast Cancer Screening in Canada” is a product of the Canadian Breast Cancer Screening Initiative (CBCSI). The CBCSI is a part of the Canadian Breast Cancer Initiative. The Initiative includes the Public Health Agency of Canada, provincial/territorial breast screening programs, professional associations, non-governmental organizations, and women.

Australia (Breast Cancer Screening, it's your choice)

Download / Télécharger

Breast cancer screening decision aid for women aged 50, updated in 2017
Its' your choice
Authors: Jolyn Hersch, Members of the Screening and Test Evaluation Program at The University of Sydney

Abstract: Why is there a decision to make about having breast cancer screening? Many people think screening for early signs of breast cancer is always a good thing. But breast screening has advantages and disadvantages. This booklet is designed to help you make an informed choice about whether you would prefer to have screening or not.This booklet was developed in 2013 by members of the Screening and Test Evaluation Program at The University of Sydney, Australia. It was developed and evaluated as part of a research study which has been published in the following article: Hersch J, et al. Use of a decision aid including information on overdetection to support informed choice about breast cancer screening: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2015; 385: 1642. The booklet was updated in 2017 to reflect the extended age range for screening.;jsessionid=F0396C69AD95F6431008EA16CB3B9195?sequence=1

United Kingdom

This leaflet was developed by an independent team of information experts at King’s Health Partners, with advice and writing support from Cancer Research UK. Through a public consultation, over 1000 members of the public contributed to developing the approach to information about the NHS cancer screening programmes. The information in this leaflet used recommendations from a citizens’ jury of 25 women about how to present the possible benefits and risks of breast screening.
Process described here :
Forbes, Lindsay JL, and Amanda-Jane Ramirez. “Offering Informed Choice about Breast Screening.” Journal of Medical Screening, vol. 21, no. 4, Dec. 2014, pp. 194–200, doi:10.1177/0969141314555350,
Complete leaflet

Download / Télécharger

NHS Breastscreening - Helping you decide

« It is your choice whether to have breast screening or not. This leaflet aims to help you decide. »

US-US Preventive Services Task Force

Download / Télécharger

Breast Cancer Screening: Benefits and Harms 

Author : Jin Jill
JAMA Patient Page
JAMA. 2014;312(23):2585. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.13195
Balancing Benefits and Harms
The pros and cons of breast cancer screening are different for everywoman.
Eachwoman also has different personal values, especially toward the idea of unnecessary
medical tests and treatments.


An interactive online tool for decision-making and risk assessment based on your personal data, free access, which offers you a calculation of your risk and a decision-making tool with benefits and risks, depending on whether you want to do no screening, a biennial or annual screening. Below is a simulation with the example of a 50-year-old African-American woman with a family history and breast biopsy in her history, with high breast density.
You thus follow the successive steps, you enter your personal data and access a risk calculation as well as a personalized point visual.

Download / Télécharger

This decision aid is recommended by the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute and meets the international IPDAS criteria. See the link:


Brustkrebs-Früherkennung – Herausgeber: Techniker Krankenkasse, Hauptverwaltung: 22291 Hamburg; in Kooperation mit dem Nationalen Netzwerk Frauen und Gesundheit. Internet: Konzept + Text: Dr. Eva Schindele, Bremer Medienbüro. Wissenschaftliche Beratung: Prof. Dr. med. Ingrid Mühlhauser, Universität Hamburg, 2013

Download / Télécharger

Text EN, page 17-18

Earlier diagnosis does not always lead to a longer life span. As this model calculation shows, in this case only the time of diagnosis was brought forward, thereby extending the disease phase by three years. In both cases, the woman dies at the age of 65.

"The earlier breast cancer is detected, the better." You can read this sentence everywhere, and it makes sense at first glance. But isn't it true?

Prof. Dr. Ingrid Mühlhauser , Hambourg University:  “Early detection only has an advantage if early therapy can prevent death from breast cancer. However, according to current knowledge, early detection mammography mainly detects forms of breast cancer that often would not have had a worse course of disease if they had been detected later. In contrast, particularly malignant forms of cancer are often not detected by mammography in time to avert death. Only the time of diagnosis is brought forward and thus the period of time in which the woman lives as a breast cancer patient is extended.”

What does it mean for women when the time of diagnosis is brought forward?

Prof. Dr. Ingrid Mühlhauser : “Imagine that breast cancer is diagnosed at the age of 60. The affected woman dies of the cancer five years later, at the age of 65. With early detection mammography, the cancer could possibly be detected three years earlier, i.e. at the age of 57. If this woman then dies at the age of 65, early detection would not have prolonged her life. It would only have prolonged her time as a breast cancer patient and possibly her period of suffering.”


BreastScreen Norway is a voluntary programme where women between 50 and 69 years are invited to have a breast cancer check in the form of a mammogram (X-ray imaging of the breast) once every two years.

Download / Télécharger

Perception and reality

How women perceive screening data, guided by optimistic slogans and presentations, versus reality
Reference: Biller-Andorno, Nikola; Jüni, Peter Abolishing Mammography Screening Programs? A View From the Swiss Medical Board, Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey: August 2014 - Volume 69 - Issue 8 - p 474-475

Download / Télécharger

Cancer Rose est un collectif de professionnels de la santé, rassemblés en association. Cancer Rose fonctionne sans publicité, sans conflit d’intérêt, sans subvention. Merci de soutenir notre action sur HelloAsso.

Cancer Rose is a French non-profit organization of health care professionals. Cancer Rose performs its activity without advertising, conflict of interest, subsidies. Thank you to support our activity on HelloAsso.

Press Release – Cancer Rose

June 2021

The National Cancer Institute censures and qualifies  as "fake news" information in health that does not follow the official direction line.

In May 2020, about thirty French editorial societies denounced "with the greatest firmness" the section entitled "Fake news Coronavirus" launched by the Government (1).

The French journalists argued that "the State is not the arbiter of information".
This site was removed, a few days later.
The lesson has obviously not been learned.

Thus, today in the same logic, the National Cancer Institute (2) has decided to study the creation of a "CSA of Health" (CSA is the acronym of “Conseil Supérieur de l'Audiovisuel », French regulator of audiovisuel)  in order to "establish rules in the field of health information”.

This “CSA of Health device will not be limited to the field of cancer”, and will therefore concern all health blogs, all doctor bloggers on social networks (websites, twitter, facebook) and all health articles in the media (online press). This decision is foreseen in a framework agreement with the hosts of content (media, social networks) to do a "work of elimination of the fake news identified by a college of experts."

The device to fight against "fake news" is already in place, part of the actions started in 2021. INCa is leading this action as indicated in the roadmap of the Cancer Plan decennial strategy 2021-2030 (Action file I.2., Action I.2.3, page 10, "Setting up a system to combat against fake news") (3).

Actualisation 2022

Project of an High Audiovisual Council of Health confirmed and published in the "Decennial Strategy to Fight Cancer 2021-2030", page 43

Thus, in order to implement this action immediately, the French National Cancer Institute qualifies from the start as "Fake news" the international controversy that exists on the benefits-risks balance of breast cancer screening.
This can be found on the INCa website under the tab : "Enlightenment: the information behind fake news" which also presents the graphic charter of  the French Republic (4).

The National Cancer Institute has always disseminated partisan and promotional information on breast cancer screening, emphasizing the effectiveness of screening by minimizing overdiagnosis and its serious consequences (overtreatment).

By decreeing that "the information on scientific debate can have a negative influence on women ...", INCa follows the same logic as the State in the affair of the site site "Désinfox Coronavirus": to arrogate a role of censor in the media production, and to grant a conformity to the only media which will deliver the information selected by the "experts" of the Institute.

By qualifying as “fake news” any scientific contradiction, by designating as "fake news" information that does not go in the official direction, by having "experts" do "an elimination work" of all that it considers contrary to its own communication, INCa will simply exercise censorship, in a country where freedom of expression and freedom of press are fundamental.






Read more :

Cancer Rose est un collectif de professionnels de la santé, rassemblés en association. Cancer Rose fonctionne sans publicité, sans conflit d’intérêt, sans subvention. Merci de soutenir notre action sur HelloAsso.

Cancer Rose is a French non-profit organization of health care professionals. Cancer Rose performs its activity without advertising, conflict of interest, subsidies. Thank you to support our activity on HelloAsso.

Cancer-rose – Press release June 2021

June 22, 2021

Website page "Enlightening information behind the fake news » set up by INCa - An unacceptable rubric on breast cancer screening

Website page in english

The French National Cancer Institute (INCa) has always adopted a partisan presentation of the benefits-risks balance on breast cancer screening, emphasizing the effectiveness of screening, although subject to contestation at international level, and minimizing risks of screening, despite of citizen consultation demands in 2016.

Currently, Professor IFRAH, the president of INCa, who is supposed to promote fair information, without bias, enabling women to make their informed decision, launches "the new rubric of INCa to fight against fake news ".

On the page regarding breast cancer screening,  questioning the benefits/risks balance of breast cancer screening is qualified as being "fake news". 

It is stated: "This scientific debate may have a negative impact on women and turn them away from screening", implying that a scientific debate could be similar to fake news.

Then, an assertion is made without discussion and without nuance of the pretended proven benefit of this screening, on the basis of "proofs" quoted in references which are... a report, a leaflet and a brochure all issued by this Institute. No source of independent scientific study is mentioned.

To deny the worldwide contestation around this screening, to refuse the debate, to downgrade any contradiction to the rank of fake news is unworthy of scientists and scandalous from an Institution in charge of informing about cancer.

Will the next step be the censoring of publications that contest or make unfavorable comments on screening, relayed in the media?

We request that this article on breast cancer screening to be removed from the National Cancer Institute's page website « Enlightening information behind fake news », because it is outrageous, insulting to the media, to scientists and to women who are fighting for an informed choice and no manipulation regarding breast cancer screening.

Cancer Rose est un collectif de professionnels de la santé, rassemblés en association. Cancer Rose fonctionne sans publicité, sans conflit d’intérêt, sans subvention. Merci de soutenir notre action sur HelloAsso.

Cancer Rose is a French non-profit organization of health care professionals. Cancer Rose performs its activity without advertising, conflict of interest, subsidies. Thank you to support our activity on HelloAsso.

INCA : from bad surprises to bad surprises

By Dr M.Gourmelon, June 22, 2021

INCa France: French Cancer Institute

Act 1

The citizen consultation of 2015 raised the question of breast cancer screening in France.This high-quality work resulted in a 166-page report [1] [2].
The recommendations of the steering committee were unambiguous (p133 of this document):


« The committee proposes two scenarios for making breast cancer screening strategy to evolve and for achieving the same objective: enabling the implementation, in the coming years and with validated technological tools, of a screening strategy adapted to the level of risk. To reach this objective, the committee has made the above recommendations and proposes two ways to achieve this through one or the other of these scenarios :

  • Scenario 1: Termination of the organized screening program, the relevance of a mammogram being assessed in the context of an individualized medical relationship.
  • Scenario 2: Discontinuation of organized screening as it exists today and implementation of a new organized screening, profoundly modified.

Despite the clarity of the recommendation, Professor IFRAH scandalized the French medical community by denying these findings:

"The letter from the President of INCa, which is attached to the report and is supposed to summarize the report for the Minister, is edifying. Norbert Ifrah violently denigrates the first scenario. He states that "by the very admission of the report's authors"... it would be "very risky, generating inequities and loss of chance". These words are not found in the report! According to the president of INCa, "abandoning the screening program" would be "a nonsense"[3].

Act 2

Publication of the "Information booklet on organized breast cancer screening", updated in August 2017[4].
But also " Guidelines for general practitioners " " Breast cancer, from diagnosis to follow-up " (March2016). [5]

This booklet obtains a score of 6/20 when it comes to the quality of the information it provides[6].
The guidelines for general practitioners are also of "poor quality."[7]

It should be noted that these two documents, which were supposed to contain objective information on breast cancer screening by mammography, are still in effect today, June 2021, on the INCA website.

Since 2016 and March 2017, the INCA has not made the slightest revision to its documents.
Yet the INCA as a governmental health agency has a duty to provide non-partisan information.
Nevertheless, the INCA cannot ignore the strong criticisms that are addressed to it.

Thus in April 2018, in the face of the "deafness" of the INCA to these criticisms, an independent collective associating organizations ( Cancer-Rose, Que Choisir, Le Formindep, the Princeps group) and a doctor blogger editorialist on France Inter Dr. Dominique DUPAGNE, published a press release entitled "INCa provides women with incomplete and biased information on the advantages and disadvantages of following the organized breast cancer screening. "[8]

Act 3

On June 16, 2021, INCa launches "the info behind the fake-news". [9]

This is relayed by the press. [10]
Professor IFRAH, still president of INCa, presents "INCa's new heading to fight against fake news" in these terms:

"Infox, fake news or even rumors, whatever name we give them, this false information can have dramatic consequences when it concerns the health of our fellow citizens.

Unfortunately, the area of cancer does not escape it. Faced with the multiplication of these fake news, the National Cancer Institute has created this webpage to help you find out why they are false and to better understand their dangers.

Pr Norbert Ifrah, president of the National Cancer Institute. "

The press release states [11]:

"Protecting the health of our fellow citizens in the face of the development of fake news in the field of cancer"

"If some of them, unfortunately well anchored, can be characterized as "far-fetched", as for example the wearing of the bra supposed to cause breast cancer, others represent a real danger for the patients who base their hopes of cure on them. "

"This device is part of the actions of Axis 1 "Improving prevention" of the ten-year strategy to fight cancer 2021-2030, launched on February 4 by the President of the Republic. "

"Each topic proposed in this section is based on a previously identified fake new. Its deciphering follows a path that enables us to apprehend its origin, to understand why it is classified as false information and its dangerousness for each of us. "

"From June 16, the National Cancer Institute is running a campaign on digital and social networks. Its objective: to allow everyone to access the decoding of false information in the field of cancer.  This campaign, which will run until mid-December 2021.... "

Who could not agree with the fight against false information? Nobody.

Unfortunately, in this section, from the very beginning, next to the famous "Far-fetched Infox" of cancer caused by wearing a bra, INCa presents the question of the interest of breast cancer screening by mammography as being an Fake new, for which it wants to demonstrate the danger[12].

We are not going to detail and analyze this page here. We will come back to it in a dedicated article.

No, what is shocking is that the INCa attributes the qualifier "Fake new" to the scientific debates that for years have been analyzing the relevance of breast cancer screening by mammography, its benefit/risk balance.

"This scientific debate may negatively impact women and turn them away from the screening exam. "

Under the pretext of "protecting the health of citizens," INCa "insults" all international scientists, the media that relay them, and all those who participate in the debate.
Moreover, as we detail in our website [13], studies that question the benefit of screening are currently more numerous than those that manage to demonstrate its usefulness.

For many years now, INCa has been "blind and deaf" [14] to everything that is scientific, to independence, to the ethics of information [15], to the exhaustiveness of information and the need to provide women with independent and reliable information in order to make an informed decision about whether or not to undergo screening.

Today, INCa is taking its "indignity" one step further.


This new step taken by INCa is particularly shocking for all those for whom the scientific method is not an empty word.

Scientific debate does not accept the denigration by one "camp" of those who have a contrary opinion.

The "truth" in science and medicine is enriched by debate, not by insults.

INCa believes it has the "truth" on the subject of breast cancer screening by mammography. This does not give it the right to behave as it has done for years, disregarding the debate and now resorting to unworthy denigration.

We don't know what the future will bring, but we are very concerned because today the red line, which has been crossed for many years as mentioned at the beginning of this article, has been largely left behind by INCa.


















Cancer Rose est un collectif de professionnels de la santé, rassemblés en association. Cancer Rose fonctionne sans publicité, sans conflit d’intérêt, sans subvention. Merci de soutenir notre action sur HelloAsso.

Cancer Rose is a French non-profit organization of health care professionals. Cancer Rose performs its activity without advertising, conflict of interest, subsidies. Thank you to support our activity on HelloAsso.

Interview TV of Renée Pellerin

Interview TV of Renée Pellerin, author of Conspiracy of Hope - the Truth About Breast Cancer Screening

Author of Conspiracy of Hope - The Truth About Breast Cancer Screening, Renée Pellerin, reveals the truth about mammograms and how they could be doing more harm than good.

Interview on 19 November 2018, TV Global News Canada

Interview on 20 March 2019, TVO Ontario Canada

Download / Télécharger

Cancer Rose est un collectif de professionnels de la santé, rassemblés en association. Cancer Rose fonctionne sans publicité, sans conflit d’intérêt, sans subvention. Merci de soutenir notre action sur HelloAsso.

Cancer Rose is a French non-profit organization of health care professionals. Cancer Rose performs its activity without advertising, conflict of interest, subsidies. Thank you to support our activity on HelloAsso.

Conspiracy of Hope-a book of Renee Pellerin

Book : Conspiracy of Hope - The Truth about Breast Cancer Screening, Goose Lane Editions, 2018

Author Renée Pellerin

Book Excerpt -
Chapter 4 :

Book Excerpt -
Chapter 10
By courtesy of the Author and Editor (

Download / télécharger

Cancer Rose est un collectif de professionnels de la santé, rassemblés en association. Cancer Rose fonctionne sans publicité, sans conflit d’intérêt, sans subvention. Merci de soutenir notre action sur HelloAsso.

Cancer Rose is a French non-profit organization of health care professionals. Cancer Rose performs its activity without advertising, conflict of interest, subsidies. Thank you to support our activity on HelloAsso.

A Guide to Health and Medicine from the GIJN

5 June 2021

Cécile Bour MD


ReCheck is an independent investigative media specializing in the backstage  of health affairs and issues.

It was founded by two investigative journalists, Catherine Riva and Serena Tinari.

Catherine Riva, a Swiss investigative journalist, is the author (among others) of the book "La piqûre de trop"  on the anti-HPV vaccination, published by Xena, and of the Mammograben files on the mammography screening business in Switzerland. Catherine Riva was also one of the reviewers of our information leaflet.

Serena Tinari is an Italian investigative journalist who has (among other things) worked for the media Patti Chiari, a weekly news magazine on citizens' and consumers' rights of the Italian Swiss public television RSI.

In the past, we have relayed one of their programs [1] on mammography screening with a guest speaker, Professor Michael Baum, surgeon and professor emeritus (University College London), who is an advocate of informing women about the benefit/risk balance of mammography screening and has published [2] and taken positions in this regard.[3] [4] 

In addition to a different and, above all an independent approach to information, Re-Check also offers training and conferences on the investigations conducted by these two journalists, as well as access to GlobaLeaks, an anonymous platform for whistleblowers to transmit confidential information in the field of medicine and public health.

Novelty of Re-Check

This year's novelty is the "A GIJN Guide. Investigating Health  and Medecine »  elaborated by Catherine Riva and Serena Tinari, for journalists covering health issues, in French version downloadable here.

GIJN is the acronym for the Global Investigative Journalism Network, a group of international journalists committed to the development and sharing of information and data among investigative journalists around the world, while promoting good journalism practices and open access to documents and data.

The guide

What is this guide and for what purpose? As explained on the homepage this guide addresses  the issues of « drug development and approval, evaluating scientific studies, understanding conflicts of interest, and exposing fraud and malpractice. It’s a road map for going beyond the claims of corporate press releases and government officials ».

Clearly, it is about unraveling the claims of medical "experts" and opinion leaders, and allowing journalists to decipher scientific studies. According to the two authors' presentation, the creation of this guide appears to have been motivated by the difficulties encountered by journalists during the Covid pandemic, and their disarray in front of medical information that was developing at an unsustainable rate. The preface is specifically dedicated to this issue.

The guide consists of a preface, an introduction, five main chapters (Regulating drugs : Dévelopment and Approval, A study is not just a study. Get your numbers straightThe Scientific Basis of Influence, First do not harm. Reporting about safetyTips and traps, Hypes and Ethics) and appendices.

A study is not just a study. Get your numbers straight

This chapter, number 2, caught our attention because it is in line with the concerns of Cancer Rose.


It is reminded here that EBM, or evidence-based medicine, should be at the center of a journalistic investigation, applying the principle of critical reading (the process of carefully and systematically evaluating the results of scientific research on the basis of evidence, to judge its reliability, value and relevance).

Evidence-based practice should lead the investigator to assess the relevance of certain elements according to the PICO method (P = check whether the patient's characteristics are suitable for the research being conducted; I = the treatment or test, e.g., screening; C = the comparator, which may be a placebo or another treatment or test; O = outcome, i.e., the measurement element or judgment criterion used in the study, which may be a rate of mortality, a rate of survival, a rate of serious illness, a therapeutic improvement, etc.)

It is interesting and even essential to be aware of this prerequisite in order to avoid analyses of studies as one can sometimes read in certain magazines or newspapers beginning with : "a large study concludes that...", or "Professor X, an expert in the treatment of disease Y, believes that..."

Levels of evidence

This chapter also reminds us that not all mediated studies are equal, and present a remarkable diagram illustrating the hierarchy of studies according to the level of evidence, which is very useful for assessing the validity of a study.

Part of the chapter explains the temptation to confuse correlation with causality, a mistake very often made, not only by journalists but sometimes by doctors and scientists themselves. It is not because two events are concomitant that they are necessarily related by cause and effect.

Presentation of data

Good advice is given concerning the use of absolute values, rather than percentages, to judge the benefit-risk balance of a treatment or test.

In the area of breast cancer screening, which is our topic, there is a need to report the reduction in the risk of dying from breast cancer, in absolute values, rather than in relative values. We often underline this point and the French citizen consultation on breast cancer screening requested it in several parts of its report (e.g. page 79),

The mathematician Gerd Gigerenzer's demonstration presented by the authors in this second chapter of the guide is a good and very masterful example of how a percentage can be misleading. When women are told that breast cancer screening will reduce mortality by 20%, they understand that 20 out of every 100 women screened will die of breast cancer. This is not the case. Gigerenzer writes « Did the public know that this impressive number corresponds to a reduction from about five to four in every 1,000 women, that is, 0.1%? The answer is, no. »
(But this misrepresentation still persists in official brochures and documents from official websites. [5] [6]  )

A concrete example of misleading communication in the field of breast cancer screening

The Grouvid study

In November 2020, the Grouvid study was published and mediatized. It was done by modeling a scenario in the context of the Gustave Roussy Institute, to evaluate the consequences of delays in oncology care for patients due to the Covid pandemic. We reported on this here, as well as on a meta-analysis published in the BMJ that also points in this same direction.

The Grouvid study, like the BMJ study cited, suggested that the delays in patient care linked to the first wave of Covid-19, could be responsible for an excess of cancer mortality of 2 to 5%, 5 years after the start of medical care. According to the study, these delays in medical care are due to 2 factors:

- the reluctance of patients to seek care for fear of contamination
- and a reduction in the capacity of hospitals to provide care.

Nowhere in this study was screening discussed, not breast cancer screening or any other screening.

However, the media made the confusion and abundantly relayed that delays in screening were the cause of excess mortality in oncology, and in particular for breast cancer [7] .  This was false information.


Investigating the healthcare industry can be really complex and difficult as a journalist.
Covering a health field, whatever it may be, certainly requires devoting a lot of time to it, training, acquiring specialized scientific notions, such as basic knowledge of epidemiology and statistics, and reading a lot of specialized literature, as well as mastering the scientific jargon.

The urgency in communication, the pressure of editorial offices on positive communication in the field of breast cancer screening, the self-censorship of some journalists lead to disasters in the information of populations, to their detriment.

We have seen the approximation and the misunderstanding in the medical information during the Covid-19 pandemic, due to the journalistic subject itself, certainly complex, but also aggravated by the urgency of the situation and the haste of the media to publish.

The tools proposed by the Global Investigative Journalism Network's Guide to Investigating Health can only be a salutary asset for any journalist concerned with good health information, in order to avoid the confusion of the population in the face of an influx of information and counter-information, as we experienced during the pandemic, and to avoid exposing people to promising procedures or tests that will plunge them, through ignorance of the potential dangers, or through bad media coverage, into the hell of a disease.

It is a question of ethics, journalistic this time.



Harms from breast cancer screening outweigh benefits if death caused by treatment is included
BMJ 2013; 346 doi: (Published 23 January 2013)Cite this as: BMJ 2013;346:f385




[6] In this regard, read our article: methods of influencing the public to participate in screening

Reduction of breast cancer mortality only expressed as relative risk reduction by the French national screening agency in the 2019 information brochure, this represents a method of influence used by the authorities to increase participation in screening. The authors point out that the use of these types of influence remains ethically dubious in cancer screening programs where the benefit-harm ratio is complex and scientifically contested.

[7] Non-exhaustive list of all the media that relayed this information to the public in a misleading manner:

Cancer Rose est un collectif de professionnels de la santé, rassemblés en association. Cancer Rose fonctionne sans publicité, sans conflit d’intérêt, sans subvention. Merci de soutenir notre action sur HelloAsso.

Cancer Rose is a French non-profit organization of health care professionals. Cancer Rose performs its activity without advertising, conflict of interest, subsidies. Thank you to support our activity on HelloAsso.

French consultation is discussed in JAMA

October 30, 2017


Less Is More

Reform of the National Screening Mammography Program in France

Alexandra Barratt, MBBS, MPH, PhD Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney and Wiser Healthcare, Sydney Australia.
Karsten Juhl Jørgensen, MD
The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Rigshospitalet Department 7811, Blegdamsvej 9, DK-2100, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Philippe Autier, MD, International Prevention Research Institute, Lyon, France.
(Mr. Pr. P.Autier entrusted us with the French translation of the article reporting on the French citizen consultation.)

The authors summarize the conduct of the citizen inquiry

In October 2016 the French Minister of Health released the report of the independent consultation into mammography screening.
The report presented two options: ending the national breast cancer screening program, or ending the current program and implementing a radically reformed program. (1)

In 2004, after years of ad hoc screening, a national mammography screening program was introduced.
Every two years, women aged 50-74 receive invitations by mail for mammography screening, covered by health insurance. Over time, however, doubts have emerged about the program's reach, accessibility, effectiveness and potential adverse effects of overdiagnosis and overtreatment.

Why and how the French inquiry took place?

In September 2015, the Minister of Health announced what the French know as a "citizen and scientific inquiry," and appointed an independent steering committee to oversee it.

This committee brings together leading health professionals, (in oncology, general medicine, epidemiology, public health) and social science professionals (in anthropology, law, economics, history of science, and bioethics), all without financial or academic links to breast cancer screening.

In addition to reviewing evidence reviews on specific issues (provided by a technical committee of the French National Cancer Institute (Inca)), the committee also oversees a "civil dialogue," a concept inherited from the French Revolution of 1789.

A website provides information about the consultation and invites the public to submit their opinions. Two pillar consultations were set up: a citizen consultation of a group of 27 women from different regions of France and different socio-economic groups, and a parallel consultation of a group of 19 health professionals with relevant professional experience but no connection to breast cancer screening. Each of these consultations took place over 5 days of information, presentations, expert interviews, questions and discussions. Each focus group addressed four questions and developed a collective response to each. A final public meeting was held to present the recommendations and answer questions.

The steering committee considered the scientific controversy over mammography screening to be particularly intense, focusing on the uncertainty of its benefit and concerned with the issues of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. The national screening program had never been controversial, despite extensive discussion in the scientific literature.

The committee found that the evidence on breast cancer screening outcomes was limited, coming from old trials and studies, none of which had been conducted in France.
The committee members pointed out that knowledge of the natural history of breast cancer was incomplete, and that breast cancer screening therefore infringed a fundamental principle of screening (2), namely that the natural history of the disease from latent to declared disease should be adequately understood. In addition, the committee was critical of the information promoted during Pink October, or breast cancer awareness month, which the committee felt overstated the benefit of screening. The citizens concluded that they did not want to keep the breast cancer screening program as currently defined and implemented. They spoke of the difficulty of making recommendations without regular evaluation of the program, and the importance of measuring the impact of the program on quality of life (not just mortality). They noted the need for economic responsibility when a program is publicly funded. The health professionals consulted recommended continuing the program, but with major reforms including improvements in the quality of information, accessibility, and evaluation of the program.

The steering committee recommended that the program be discontinued, or that radical reforms be made.

If the program were to be continued, their key recommendations included:

  • - Providing neutral, comprehensive information for women, the public and physicians.
  •  - Acknowledgement of scientific controversy in information for women and physicians.
  •  - Training for doctors to better assist women in making an informed decision about breast cancer screening.
  •  - A research program into the natural history of breast cancer(s) and the effectiveness of new treatment approaches.
  • -An improved program evaluation to monitor the impact of screening on quality of life, mortality, and cost impact.
  • - An end to screening of women age 50 years or younger who are ar average risk
  • - Consideration of screening based on risk level, so that low-risk women could be screened less frequently or not at all, while higher-risk women could be followed more intensively.

The Minister of Health asked the French National Cancer Institute to develop a plan for reform.

April 2017 the Minister of Health published a plan composed of broad reforms intended to be implemented over several years (3).

The first immediate steps are focused on information for women so that they can make their own decisions with the help of their physician: a new medical consultation for every woman at age 50 to discuss cancer screening and prevention options (including primary prevention through lifestyle changes to reduce the risk of cancer); provision of comprehensive information in the form of a booklet accompanying screening invitations and also via an online decision aid; and additional tools and training to help physicians communicate about the benefit/risk balance and limitations of screening.

Other measures include improving access to the program, providing more support to women during the screening process, improving the technical quality of the program, and establishing a research program alongside the screening.

But the authors of the point of view in the JAMA underline that the plan does not detail how these measures will be evaluated.

What is the specificity of the French consultation?

The authors recall that this French consultation is the third independent evaluation of breast cancer screening in Europe, following those of Switzerland and the United Kingdom (4,5). All emphasized the need for comprehensive and balanced information, and all recognized overdiagnosis as a serious harm; two (the Swiss and French evaluations) made a recommendation to stop screening as currently proposed.
These results differ greatly from the recommendations of other panels, such as the US Task Force, the American Cancer Society, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which recently concluded that the benefits outweigh the harms of breast cancer screening and continue to recommend it. (6)

Where might these differences between different program reviews and recommendations come from?

The authors give several explanations :

1- Avoiding conflicts of interests

One explanation is that some panels may be compromised by conflicts of interest (7), something carefully avoided in the three European surveys.

2- A broader range of represented disciplines

It is also important that views from a broader range of disciplines be represented, so that panel members with expertise in the humanities and social sciences will be more likely to raise social, legal, and ethical considerations for discussion regarding population screening.

Juries making recommendations for medical treatment do not necessarily look for the values and preferences of citizens in making their recommendations. But screening programs do impact the lives of asymptomatic citizens, and so their choices are important in decision-making.

3- Inclusion of a citizen perspective

That the French consultation included a citizen perspective in its investigation and recommendation process is another possible explanation.

One approach to mammographic screening is to ask individuals to make their own informed decision to participate, with assistance in the form of shared decision making.
This approach, although often advocated (8), is challenging to obtain and sustain.(9)

Seeking the views of informed citizens and their preferences through a collective approach is an alternative that provides a sharp contrast to shared decision-making with one patient at a time.

In Conclusion

The authors share the view that community discussions, such as in the French inquiry, allow for the sharing of meaningful information and the exchange of opinions among citizens from diverse backgrounds. This kind of deliberative process offers advantages for developing actions with implications for other countries, well beyond breast cancer screening.(9,10) 

References :

1. Comité d’orientation de la concertation citoyenne et scientifique sur le dépistage du cancer du sein. Rapport du Comité d’Orientation. Boulogne-Billancourt, France: Institut National du Cancer; 2016. http://www.concertation-depistage .fr/. Accessed September 14, 2017.

2. WilsonJMG,JungnerG.PrinciplesandPracticeof Screening for Disease. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1968.

3. Plan d’action pour la rénovation du dépistage organisé du cancer du sein: Ministère des Affaires Sociales et de la Santé; 2017.

4. MarmotMG,AltmanDG,CameronDA,Dewar JA, Thompson SG, Wilcox M. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Br J Cancer. 2013;108(11):2205-2240.

5. Chiolero A, Rodondi N. Lessons from the Swiss Medical Board recommendation against mammography screening programs. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(10):1541-1542.

6. Jørgensen KJ, Kalager M, Barratt A, et al. Overview of guidelines on breast screening: Why recommendations differ and what to do about it. Breast. 2017;31:261-269.

7. NorrisSL,BurdaBU,HolmerHK,etal.Author's specialty ans conflicts of interest contribute to conflicting guidelines for screening mammography. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(7):725-733.

8. ElmoreJG,KramerBS.Breastcancerscreening: towardinformeddecisions.JAMA.2014;311(13): 1298-1299.

9. IrwigL,GlasziouP.Informedconsentfor screening by community sampling. Eff Clin Pract. 2000;3(1):47-50.

10. RychetnikL,CarterSM,AbelsonJ,etal. Enhancing citizen engagement in cancer screening through deliberative democracy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105(6):380-386.

Cancer Rose est un collectif de professionnels de la santé, rassemblés en association. Cancer Rose fonctionne sans publicité, sans conflit d’intérêt, sans subvention. Merci de soutenir notre action sur HelloAsso.

Cancer Rose is a French non-profit organization of health care professionals. Cancer Rose performs its activity without advertising, conflict of interest, subsidies. Thank you to support our activity on HelloAsso.

Exit mobile version