Mrs. PL, 22 years of shared life with breast cancer, or the fight from a fierce “NO” to a half-hearted “YES.”

Testimony from the practice of Dr. M. Granger, Senologist, October 2, 2021

February 1999: Mrs. PL, 58 years old, consulted for a nodule in her right breast, which had existed for two years, but which had recently undergone an inflammatory change. Clinically this nodule is typically a sebaceous cyst located on her right breast.

However, the mammogram showed, in addition to an oval subcutaneous opacity very well limited and in agreement with the clinical diagnosis, a cluster of punctiform and dusty calcifications, at a distance from this nodule, distributed in half a dozen small foci with numerous tight elements, without densification or associated architectural distortion. The conclusion of this first encounter, for a benign pattern, is the probable presence of a "right retro-mammary intraductal carcinoma, a histology is necessary."

As this lady was followed by a homeopathic doctor who was very close to his patients, no instructions for treatment were given, except for the conclusion reported above. Without any news during the following months, I wrote to my colleague: Mrs. PL was indeed undergone surgery, and the answer was "positive."

Having obtained the operative and histological reports, I learned that it was a 6 mm infiltrating ductal carcinoma, with more than 2 mm clean surgical margins. The peripheral intra-ductal contingent had fine regular calcifications, and it comes into contact with the limits of the excision. The second stage dissection (no initial extemporaneous examination, as this was a simple surgical biopsy of micro-calcifications [we were in 1999]), associated with the resection of the tumor bed, showed: no tumor residue and a negative dissection of the 3 layers (0/15).

September 1999: first postoperative follow-up at 6 months. This examination was satisfactory, with a trivial area of steatonecrosis at the surgical site. A new appointment is given at 6 months, classical surveillance.

June 2000: follow-up 14 months after the initial surgery.

Mrs. PL stated that she had not consulted an oncologist. She was afraid of radiation and would not do it, advised by her homeopathic doctor, who considered it useless to do radiation "for nothing" as the results of the tumour bed resection and curage were normal.

Mrs. PL will then scrupulously return, every year in June, for 12 years. In 2011, she informed me that she was getting divorced. The following year the imaging was transformed: a micro opacity, not significant until then, doubled in volume, appeared spiculated, and measured 6 mm on ultrasound. Same breast, close to the initial bed. The cytopunction immediately shows a cellular mass characteristic of carcinoma, and it is, therefore, a recurrence in situ. Reoperation is necessary.

July 2012: Mrs. PL chooses not to see her initial surgeon again and to consult a Parisian celebrity. The surgery performed in July 2012 will be limited to a "large quadrantectomy," as the patient refused the recommended mastectomy. Despite this, the histology of the surgical specimen is... negative: the pathologist did not find any tumor proliferation.

October 2012: when Mrs. PL comes back for a new postoperative check-up at 3 months, I discover this "discrepancy": I question - Mrs. PL also finds out, and I end up choking... Because I have absolute faith in my puncture method and the accurate reading of my cytopathologist, trained at the Zajdela school of the Curie Institute: where is the error? The MRI will show the persistence of an intense and early enhancement corresponding to the sought-after lesion. My ultrasound found the mitotic gap, unchanged, of 6 mm. The conclusion is evident with a sigh: the lesion has remained in place.

November 2012: the patient is then reoperated in the same Parisian clinic: "right hemi-mastectomy," taking away the spotting hook. One could see in this hemi-mastectomy either a certain " broadness " of the surgeon, perhaps embarrassed by this involuntary reoperation, or a poorly mastered spotting technique? What is certain is that the histological analysis still does not show the tumour lesion but rather ordinary inflammatory changes. This recurrent discordance still does not raise any metaphysical question.

April 2013: new control examination, difficult. The breast is disfigured, the scar is stuck after a very large postoperative hematoma. Doubt about the persistence of the initial anomaly, still at the union of the external quadrants of the right breast. A new MRI will, however, come back normal. OUF, the tribulations of this cancer seem to be over (?), but with the bitter taste of not having understood everything: where did this 6 mm tumor disappear?

October 2013: six months later, Mrs. PL reveals that she is being followed in Belgium and taking 2LC1-N to support her immunity. She will, however, accept my regular follow-up.

May 2016: I see her regularly, every year now. In May 2016, she reported a small intradermal granule at the union of the external quadrants of the right breast, thus always in the exact localization. The cytology is... stubbornly malignant. This time, a bit tired of all these missteps, I explain loud and clear that the choices made have not solved the problem and that it would be appropriate to do a "real" mastectomy associated with a radiotherapy of the chest wall. This opinion is confirmed by the Faculty (University Hospital of P...). However, Mrs. PL continues to refuse both the micro biopsy and the mastectomy.

September 2016: under pressure from another university hospital (T...), Mrs. PL will accept the biopsy removal of her nodule: the carcinoma is this time infiltrating ductal carcinoma is well stamped, the hormone receptors are strongly positive. A mastectomy was scheduled: it was refused, as was hormone therapy. As well as radiotherapy, once again.

March 2017: the nodule will recur again, after its localized removal, at the same place... A new puncture (malignant) will finally convince the patient... A simple mastectomy, without radiotherapy, will eventually be performed in May 2017, that is to say, 18 years after the first lumpectomy, and three "conservative" operations which had already largely damaged the breast...

October 2020: three and a half years later. After this (final?) episode, Mrs. PL is doing well; she is now 80 years old, she remains a gentle and pleasant person. She is getting used to her mastectomy scar. She never had a word of doubt about her Parisian surgeon or pathologist, nor about the successive disfigurements that were imposed on her.

This observation has several salient points, to say the least: what can we learn from it for the Defense and Illustration of Senology?

1- How can we respond to this homeopathic colleague who wonders about the interest of radiotherapy "for nothing"?

First of all: that there is no "nothing" since his patient has invasive cancer, certainly not very locally developed, at least in appearance. But can one know in advance and with certainty the evolutionary potential of cancer? History has proven its high potential for recurrence.

Secondly, the fact that the surgical margins were healthy at the initial surgery was undoubtedly good news. Still, it did not in any way prejudge the biological reality, which was inaccessible to the pathologist. The notion of the carcinogenesis field confronts us with this obvious fact: in 2021, we still cannot know the biological boundaries of a carcinogenesis process. Surgery is, therefore, necessarily approximate.

In the context of conservative treatment, radiotherapy is the preferred weapon to drastically reduce the incidence of local recurrence, which would otherwise be almost systematic. In summary: conservative surgical treatment should necessarily be associated with adjuvant radiotherapy.

Finally, we must agree with this colleague that the patients of a homeopathic doctor always have great "faith" in the method and that his doubts have fed, knowingly or unknowingly, the phobia of the X-ray of Mrs. PL.

2- Like everything else, this history must follow a logical pattern: if a diagnosis of malignant recurrence has been made and the histology of the operative specimen is normal, there is a contradiction and, therefore, an error somewhere, which must be resolved. This error can be the initial diagnosis (false positive of one of the techniques used...), the operative methodology (location of the area to be biopsied, topography/extent of the sample...), or the histological analysis itself (identification difficulties, number of slices taken... [cuts every 5 mm may miss the smallest tumors]).

Unfortunately, this investigation was not done after the first recurrence... This case was not the judiciary, so we will not know the end of the story.

A word about the initial diagnosis: it did not include a micro biopsy which, as we know, has become the grail of oncologists, because the patient refuses it. However, it must be admitted that fine-needle aspiration, a straightforward technique, usually provides very rich and unambiguous cytology for a trained cytopathologist. I do not know of any false positives in my experience. In this story, all the cytologies were characteristic, and the final diagnosis proved them correct. So it was not the initial diagnosis that was wrong.

3- The constant attitude of Mrs. PL questions us, the physicians, on the level of risk we place on our patients. A very anxious and/or very enterprising radiologist, who wishes to macrobiopsy the slightest grouping of microcalcifications (without waiting for the test of minimal surveillance, which would make it possible to judge their change), and Mrs. PL, who waited until the 4th local recurrence to be persuaded, merely to undertake the recommended treatment, are living in radically opposed and incompatible medical worlds.

4- It did come to your attention that Mrs. PL's first recurrence appeared the year after her divorce. In contrast, the first 12 years of her follow-up had gone smoothly, despite an incomplete initial treatment, radiotherapy having been rejected. Once again, cancer is shown in its true light, that of a psycho-somatic disease, the psyche being most often the initiator/accelerator of this process.

Cancer Rose Commentary

We would add another lesson from this observation, and that is "the lesson of humility."

Women are often made to feel the urgency of the situation as soon as a cancerous lesion is diagnosed as if every minute counts. Everyone is running, busy, panicking; we must act, react, operate as quickly as possible! However, in this case, the patient has been living with cancer for years, and she has reached the age of 80 without losing her life!

So it's never too late to do the right thing; it's never too late to treat and cure.

So, where is the urgency in which we propel the diagnosed women? If the cancer is metastatic, it is so immediately; in most cases, it is clear that there is no need to panic women as we do, and we are not a minute away. Yes, we can sometimes give ourselves time for surveillance (the ACR3 classifications (simple surveillance) have almost disappeared; in our emergency, we immediately consider taking samples and performing interventions).

Yes, we must treat, of course, but without panicking! Cancer does not metastasize in 5 minutes (unless it has already done so, and in that case, we are a step behind); it does not kill on the spot; we are not going to die tomorrow!

This case shows us the humility that the medical profession should have and shows us that it is necessary to leave the 'panic' and the 'emergency' that we inflict on women when we find them cancer, giving them the impression of imminent death, but that we are going to save their life because we have been quick.

The fate of the patients is not in our hands as great "saviors." It is never "too late" to treat and heal.

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.

Dream of a senologist

A testimonial from Dr M. Granger, Senologist, July 21, 2021

Mrs PS, 50 years old, from Paris, consulted in August 2010 for advice.

On June 23, 2010, she had a 3rd mammogram in a Parisian SENOLOGY CENTER, classified as ACR4 for a "poorly systematized zone of architectural distortion in the upper right quadrant." She had microbiopsies the same day, which resulted in the "diagnosis": "Proliferative fibrocystic mastopathy with atypia, ductal type (Atypical ductal hyperplasia)." She has an MRI appointment in a few days and is very concerned about the speed and bad turn of events: what is she supposed to do?

My findings:

After carefully inspecting the mammograms that were brought to me, I notice, with some initial concern, that this "zone of poorly systematized architectural distortion" escapes my sagacity.

The magnifying glass brings nothing: I see, in comparison with the left breast, which underwent a total adipose involution, only a banal aspect of a glandular remnant.

The appearance was identical on a mammogram done precisely seven years earlier.

Moreover, my clinical and ultrasound examination was strictly normal.

Surprised by the Parisian radiological diagnosis but reassured by the constant imaging, I advised this lady to wait for the MRI results and send them to me. These results arrived three days later, on the same evening as the examination.

"The zone of right superior-external architectural distortion is confirmed, with no suspicious morphological character on MRI." However, we are aware of the underestimation of MRI for intra-canal lesions. A surgical excision of the atypical area should be planned”.

The patient, caught in the "concordant" vise of 3 reports - mammogram, biopsy, and MRI - consulted a breast surgeon at the Gustave Roussy Institute (IGR).

A few days later, she sent me the following report: "I have received the result of your breast MRI, which confirms the elements described on the mammogram, i.e., a poorly systematized area of the upper right quadrant. However, given the histological findings of the biopsy, which revealed fibrocystic mastopathy with ductal atypia,  an excision surgery of this area is necessary".

I am sending this email back to Mrs. PS

Dear Mrs,

In response to your email, here are my conclusions:

- Your MRI is normal; the exact text is: "area of right superior-external architectural distortion that does not show, on MRI, any suspicious morphological character." As usual, the rest of the report ("however...") is just an umbrella formula.

- The letter from the IGR retains the negative part of this report ("poorly systematized zone" [which means what, by the way?]), opening the umbrella in turn: "an excision surgery is necessary...". A surgeon operates.

I warned you about this logic. I encounter it every day. It's not mine, given the mammograms you brought me, which haven't changed in seven years. This stability, in my opinion, is worth all of the umbrellas in all of the institutions on the planet, especially when the MRI is normal.

I remain in favor of simple surveillance, the specifics of which have to be determined for your moral comfort and safety: I would recommend a first X-ray and ultrasound control of the right breast within a year or less (contact my secretary), and then we will see.

You are thus confronted with choosing between following your new provincial senologist and the big Parisian machinery! Make this decision in your soul and conscience, discarding all Hierarchies and listening only to your deep feelings: the good answer will be found there.

Sincerely yours. M Granger

Mrs. PS finally chose to follow her provincial senologist.

She "comes from far away" but "knows why." I saw her until 2017, without noticing anything new, with clinical and X-rays and ultrasound examinations remaining unchanged for over 15 years. One who has been saved...

What can we learn from all this for the teaching of Senology?

Several observations, among many others, appear to be beneficial to me:

- The radiologist's initial description ("poorly systematized architectural distortion") was the starting point for a path that the patient had to climb alone... until the anxiety became too much for her and she decided to seek advice.

-This initial description was at no time questioned, and the radiologist's opinion was final.

However, it should be noted that the ACR classification can be easily "twisted" to achieve the desired result: if the radiologist accepts simple surveillance, he will grade the images as ACR2; if he wants close surveillance, he will grade them as ACR3; and if he wants a biopsy, especially if he can do it immediately, he will grade them as ACR4, as in this case.

A detached viewpoint will see things differently: simply comparing all of the mammograms taken, sometimes a dozen(!), will lead to a different conclusion, in this case normal (or ACR 2, if you are a fan of the Americas). That would have put an end to this lengthy diagnostic rambling.

-As previously mentioned, the initial description/classification was not discussed: because each professional works independently, without controversy, and is thus not directly accountable to the patient. In fact, this chain can be described as a vertical commercial agreement from which all parties have benefited. In the wild animal world, this is known as "horde hunting," and we know that if all of the subjects in the cohort are potentially targeted, only the strongest will escape .

Mrs. PS, a graduated lady working in the high public service, was able to get out of it by making the Cornelian decision to resist the IGR Institute... many others are not.

The remedy to this chain of medical control without counter-power is NOT to be found in the RCP (multi-disciplinary consultation meeting, editor's note): I have never seen a pathologist, a surgeon, or a radiotherapist oppose and break the chain biased from the start towards biopsies - micro, macro or surgical.

As a result, there is a de facto agreement not to question the initial diagnosis, and individual psychoanalysis of the "validated decisions" in RCP would be fascinating. The breast is a highly invested organ that everyone loves to argue about and share.

You may have realized that I am living the dream that our father (Charles-Marie Gros, from the Hospices Civils de Strasbourg) had in the 1960s: that the SENOLOGIST is recognized as that breast specialist, a little/lots/passionately a specialist in all the disciplines involved-from the various forms of imaging to anatomopathologist, to the relative interest of surgery and the oncologists' panoply... a specialist who coordinates and tempers everyone's enthusiasms and anxieties, a specialist ultimately accountable to the patient.

A communicator who is willing to take his time and sometimes loses it. But, as you're probably aware, the dream is still a dream, and SENOLOGY is a beautiful utopia. Mrs. PS and her struggle sisters occasionally awaken it.


A few comments from Cancer Rose

It is absolutely clear that screening has increased the number of unnecessary mastectomies.
We presented our study on mastectomies in France at the French Society of Senology's annual meeting in Lille.
It is undeniable that non-cancerous lesions are "over-operated," and this is yet another example of an over-detection drift, namely over-treatment.
Yet, this obviously explains why, as described in our study, there are increasingly more mastectomies in comparison to the incidence of invasive cancers.

The observation also confirms the ACR classification drifts: ACR3 hardly exists any longer, there is a tendency to classify very quickly in ACR4, and we voluntarily "upgrade" our examination classifications to have immediate access to a tissue sample, to avoid omitting anything, rather than taking time, settling down, and possibly rechecking at a later date.
The ACR4 becomes a catch-all for anything that appears "abnormal." More information can be found at

Finally, while there is a double reading during screening for cases classified as "negative" (see here:, there is none for cases classified as "positive." This is not entirely logical.
But, even if there was, who would have the courage to "negate" an image previously classified as positive by another colleague...


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.

Sophie’s testimony

June 6, 2021

By Sophie, testimony and point of view

Ethics of screening, information for women, training of professionals on breast cancer screening: what is the strategy of the new Cancer Plan?

A testimonial

...Before age of 50, I had a breast cancer screening test prescribed by my doctor as part of a health check-up, for no particular reason, just to be reassured. I showed up at the radiology center with a simple prescription, without the least information on the radiation, nor on the additional examinations, or the consequences of the test in case of abnormality, just as I would have a blood test for a general check-up. I was not given any information about what they were really looking for in the absence of symptoms, nor about the fact that they will be using a super-powerful tomosynthesis technology that detects the smallest anomaly of a few millimeters, for which no one can tell the outcome, nor on the doses of radiation delivered by the ten x-ray images with enlargements, with a total dose (16.5 mGy) of radiation four times higher than the dose delivered by a classic mammographic examination (3-4 mGy), and that I will have to repeat in 6 months, then 12 months and then 24 months. If all goes well, if not something else will happen?

If I were to draw a parallel with a drug, I would have had an information leaflet listing potential side effects.  But a mammogram is considered a harmless, banal examination.  I don't have any doubt about my doctor's good intentions, but unfortunately the tests and the anxious waiting were  overwhelming, then came the regret of having  this exam which should better not have been done.
I should have been able to decide, with the right information, but I didn't have it.

I may be told that this is a test done to save my life, although studies by independent researchers from the Cochrane organization have shown that for every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will avoid dying of breast cancer and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily. 
Would I be that lucky one, although I did not feel in any imminent danger, I had no particular concern for breast cancer, nor any family history of it, I was not even 50 years old, which is the starting age for screening mammography in France? Or on the other side, could I be one of the other 10 women unnecessarily treated ? In any case, it was up to me to weigh the benefits and risks and choose. And it's not fair that I didn't get all this information in advance.

... Among close contacts of mine, a woman had a screening mammogram at her age of 72, without any information except invitation letters. She gave in to the reminder letters and decided to undergo the exam so that, she would be left in peace. Similarly, after the mammography followed additional tests and anxious waiting of results for the whole family, with regrets for having done this exam without being properly informed.

Once again, lack of honesty and transparency…

......Another woman I know, in her forties, with no particular risk factors, had pressure from her gynecologist to have a mammogram, with no particular reason, and  without receiving any information. She tries to hold on and hope to not upset her gynecologist, because it is difficult to find another one.

Where is the information?

And there are many such cases... Here, we are talking about healthy women with no symptoms suggestive of breast cancer. It’s not about women who have a symptom and who should consult, because in this case the mammography is necessary.

These cases show the lack of information and training of professionals, whether it is the GP, the radiologist or the gynaecologist, who focus on mammographic screening examinations to find existing, hypothetical or future breast cancers in healthy women, forgetting to inform them correctly and without taking into account their autonomy of decision.

And yet it could be done better. Information on the benefits and risks of breast cancer screening, in the case of a healthy woman with no particular symptoms, is a due to women: it is up to them to choose according to their own values and preferences if they wish to undergo it or not, especially since the benefits are not clear; the controversy between the benefits and the real damage has been going on for 40 years now.

This was also one of the first recommendations of the steering committee following the 2016 citizen and scientific consultation on breast cancer screening in France :  "The consideration of controversy in the information provided to women and in the information and training (initial and continuous) of professionals in this area, so that women concerned by breast cancer screening are provided with balanced and complete information, and that professionals involved in breast cancer screening are trained to acquire the relevant knowledge to accompany women, offering them adequate support to make their decision" (1).

Why women are not told the truth, why doctors do not humbly acknowledge their doubts about the appropriateness of this exam in the absence of any symptoms? They prefer to put forward benefits that they are not sure of, forgetting everything else, including informed consent and patient autonomy.

A new cancer plan, situation in France

The ten-year strategy of the new cancer plan has been adopted by decree (2).

We expected measures to improve information for women while respecting the autonomy of patients, as is done in Great Britain, Australia, Canada and Germany. Elsewhere, the objective is to inform and not to persuade, the emphasis is on the women's decision without making them feel guilty, by providing decision support tools, which correctly communicate risks in absolute numbers and not in percentages by minimizing them.

As for this decision aid in Canada (3) which states:

« Why is shared decision making important? 
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. »

Click to enlarge

Instead of developing such tools, in France the focus is on the number of screenings and the participation rate, without the slightest concern for informed consent, the objective of the Cancer Plan being "to achieve one million more screenings by 2025 for the three screening programs, including organized breast cancer screening and to exceed the coverage targets recommended at the European level in terms of screening and join the leading group in terms of adherence with a participation rate of 70% for organized breast cancer screening, while today the participation rate announced for 2018-2019 is : 49.3% + 10-15% (organized + individual). "((2), action sheet I.12, p.20)

And yet the rate of participation in screenings should not be a goal of these programs. The real goal should be related to informed patient decision. As danish researchers (Rahbek et al, 2021) point out, instead of evaluating cancer screening programs on the basis of participation rates, the measure of engagement could be the rate of informed decisions, regardless of participation or non-participation (4). The authors note that authorities assume that for most citizens, participation is the right choice. This view is not necessarily shared by informed citizens. Indeed, current evidence suggests that the more informed citizens are, the less likely they are to participate in cancer screening (4). (see also : )

Yet the 2020 WHO guide (5) on screening provides very clear information on the principles to be followed. The guide points out that the risk of these measures to increase participation rates is that people's autonomy to make an informed decision is threatened.

To avoid this, the guide recommends taking care to enable informed consent and to protect individual autonomy.

However, none of the actions in the roadmap of the Cancer Plan address the improvement of information to the population on the benefits and risks of screening, as recommended by the WHO 2020 guide. Similarly, there is no measure on the training of professionals in risk communication as recommended by the WHO. Yet the WHO guide gives as examples tools such as infographics, videos and decision aids can facilitate understanding and promote informed consent as well as evidence-based practices. And it points out that both lay people and clinical physicians tend to overestimate the benefits of screening and underestimate its harms. (see also

The WHO guide also indicates the principles that must be respected in a screening policy: 

« 1. Respect for dignity and autonomy. Autonomy is the capacity to make an informed and uncoerced decision. »

2.Non-maleficence and beneficence. Non-maleficence means doing no harm to people; beneficence aims to do good for people.

3.Justice and equity. In health care, justice concerns fair allocation of resources and that resources are allocated proportionate to the need.

4.Prudence and precaution. The precautionary principle requires foresight, planning for the potential outcomes of screening and making wise judgements based on these future concerns.

5.Honesty and transparency. This requires clear and transparent communica- tion, thus promoting accountability. » One may wonder whether these fundamental ethical principles will be respected in the new roadmap of the Cancer Plan, which focuses as much on the participation rate, with the ambition of exceeding the European objectives, but without worrying about information to the population and the training of professionals

How to make an informed decision when information is not provided or is incomplete and biased (see : )?

The INCA booklet should be reviewed, particularly with regard to the targets for participation rates. It should be produced by an independent committee without conflict of interest and with the involvement of a panel of women as was done by the National Health Service in the UK and described by Forbes et al, 2014 (6). The 25 women on the panel, aged 47 to 73 years and recruited from the streets of London, came from a variety of professional and ethnic backgrounds. The NHS brochure does not seek to encourage screening or ask citizens to make decisions without guidance. And the committee that wrote UK brochure states that :  « policy of judging the performance of cancer screening only on measures of uptake is, arguably, inconsistent with the policy of supporting informed choice. » (6)

How can the principle of non-maleficence be respected when some women suffer the effects of overdiagnosis, without being properly informed of these risks beforehand?

Concerning the principle of honesty and transparency, danish researchers in screening (Rahbek et al, 2021 (4)) have cited the official INCA brochure as an example of presenting statistics in a misleading way, such as relative % reduction in mortality. And according to these scientists, this misrepresentation is an influence technique to increase participation in screening. The bias introduced by these relative mortality reduction values is also explained and criticized in the GIJN guide developed by RecheckHealth for investigative journalists reporting on health affairs and issues (7).

According to Rahbek et al, 2021 (4) insofar as patient autonomy and informed choice are important, the use of these types of influence remains ethically dubious in cancer screening programs where the benefit/harm ratio is complex and scientifically contested.

In addition, this INCA brochure, even if biased and incomplete, is not transmitted to all women, since it is sent only one time at age of 50, so women who were over the age of 50 in 2017, when the brochure started to be sent, have not received it.


Elsewhere than in France, efforts are being made to provide better information. Increasingly, the scientific literature emphasizes the need to inform citizens in order to make an informed decision about the benefits and harmful effects of screening for healthy people.

Especially this is the case in screening programs where the benefit/harm ratio is complex and scientifically contested and where the consequences of screening are complex and require personal choice, as in the case of breast cancer screening.

The ten-year strategy could have taken this into account in France as well, but it missed this opportunity, at the cost of a lack of information for women and training for professionals. 


  • (1) Citizen and scientific consultation, 2016

Report Key points Translated in English

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.

ARC classification

ACR mammography classification

By Cécile Bour, MD, Radiologist

November 11, 2018

Testimony of the radiologist....

I was alerted by fellow general practitioners who rightly questioned the ACR classification in the conclusions of our mammogram reports, and who tended to draw a parallel between this scale and the seriousness or poor prognosis that their patient would have ...

The question is quite relevant, as we, radiologists happily classify our description in a sort of coded verdict, without really explaining the why and how of things and without realizing that for the correspondent it is not intuitive to know to what these ACRs correspond. Above all, there is a great risk of overlaying this classification of imaging alone with the classification of cancer severity stages.

However, the two have nothing to do with each other.

The ACR classification

ACR (American College of Radiology) classification was developed in 1990, due to the need of systematizing reports in order to harmonize practices. We find 5 stages which correspond to the more or less certainty of having to deal with a cancer in front of a mammographic image.

ACR 1: normal, the breast has " nothing to report ".

ACR 2: we have images that are only benign abnormalities, this includes small axillary nodes, micro cysts, images that are undetermined but have been strictly unchanged for ages, fibro-adenomas or cysts that are already well known and have been identified as benign (by ultrasound, MRI or previous biopsy), vascular, cystic or galactophoric microcalcifications, amorphous glandular islets etc...

ACR 3: this stage designates an image that is not very worrying but whose future is to be verified, which was not known before, or known but has changed slightly compared to previous exams. The standard proposed procedure for this classification is a single monitoring at 6 months, then at one year, to ensure that it does not increase in size or that the analysis criteria do not become more characteristic in favour of malignant lesions.

ACR 4 classification means that there is a high probability of cancer, and that it is a very suspicious abnormality to be sampled in any case. ACR4 therefore automatically implies a biopsy, under ultrasound (micro-biopsy) or under radiographic control, by a mammotome procedure (macro-biopsy), or directly by biopsy-exeresis. In the end, we may have made a misinterpretation, or it may be a poorly evolving cancer, or even a very aggressive cancer; the type of image that led us to classify it as ACR4 says nothing about the aggressiveness or not of the cancer, if what we biopsied is indeed one!

ACR 5: the anomaly is very strongly suspected of malignancy and the semiological criteria are quite evocative and typical of malignancy. We can say that we are very, very sure of the malignancy.

ACR 0 is the incomplete examination that will have to be added to other imaging examinations.

This description of the mammographic image determines the decision

Unfortunately, on the one hand it is very subjective. Not all "expert" readers always agree on whether to classify as ACR 3 or ACR 4.The switch from analog to digital mammography (a recent process which, I intentionally shorten and simplify, makes you see better and smaller things than the previous mammography process) makes it more complicated to compare an old exam done in analog to a "better" digital imaging.This will give the impression of an image with perhaps more irregular contours than before, or which would be denser, or slightly increased in volume, whereas it is simply the change in technique that induces this doubt, as the images of two different examinations are not strictly overlapping.

On the other hand, medico-legal issues have become more prevalent over time, as well as the increase of the overall level of anxiety for both the patients and the medical profession. The ACR3 classification is more and more abandoned in favor of the ACR4 which becomes an abominable bottomless pit into which the radiologist throws almost any image that does not let him sleep.

As we have already seen on this site[1] neither the specificity nor the positive predictive value of mammography are good.

Specificity is the probability that the screening mammogram will be negative for a subject (in this case the screened woman) who is not ill. However, the specificity of screening mammography is not sufficient, because the test may be positive in some cases when the woman is not ill.

Unfortunately, the double reading, practiced for the organized screening in France, presented as an improvement of the screening test, further decreases the already poor specificity of the mammogram, and at the slightest doubt the second reader will outperform the mammogram for fear of "missing" a cancer. In other words, the already poor specificity of screening mammography is further weakened by double reading.

The positive predictive value is the probability that the subject (the woman being screened) will be ill for a positive test. The PPV of screening mammography is very low, between 9 and 10%.

This means that for a woman for whom the mammogram is judged positive and for whom a biopsy of the incriminated image is performed, there is a 90% chance (100%-10% of PPV) that the biopsy will come back negative and therefore has been excessively proposed. As the journal Prescrire has pointed out, breast biopsies have literally exploded since the screening was performed. [2]


In practice, it is important to remember that radiological classification has nothing to do with the classification of cancerous stages, and that an ACR4 classification is not always based on a very dubious radiological semiology, but to a large extent because we want to identify the cancer by sampling very quickly, because a new image  that was not visible before has appeared, because an image may have changed or become a little bigger, because one does not want to give oneself the time to simply monitor, any diagnosis becoming abusively urgent and intolerable in the minds of professionals as well as the public. Contrary to what is taught to the public, there is no urgency or loss of chance to wait a few weeks, a few months... But this reasonable and wait-and-see attitude is no longer possible nowadays, especially after alarming public appearances of health authority officials or opinion leaders alerting people by the press or popular health programs that "we have no time to lose".

The level of anxiety in the population, already very high because the multiplication of these invasive gestures, misunderstood because they are poorly justified, it will further become even higher.

What makes us wonder is that in the new European MyPEBS trial, initiated to study the relevance of stratified screening based on risk, the fact of having had a biopsy, even a benign one, represents a risk factor for women that justifies classifying them as « being at higher risk than normal »...

See page 19/20 of the synopsis:

Well, being a woman is already a big risk...



[2] Prescrire magazine, February 2015/Tome 35 N°376

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.