--- title: Mammograms May Not Lower Breast Cancer Deaths, Study Says description: Is it time to ditch the mammogram? A new study finds the screening tool does little to lower breast cancer deaths or pick up advanced cases canonical: https://time.com/5050978/mammogram-breast-cancer/ author: Alice Park article:opinion: false article:content_tier: free article:published_time: 2017-12-06T16:21:29.000Z article:modified_time: 2026-08-04T08:04:08.155Z article:section: Health og:title: It's Time to End Mammograms, Some Experts Say og:description: A study shows the screening tool does little to lower breast cancer deaths og:url: https://time.com/5050978/mammogram-breast-cancer/ og:site_name: TIME og:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt936a5938ac00481d/698868f2cf40a8237cc4044e/breast-cancer-02.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 og:image:width: 2560 og:image:height: 1440 og:image:alt: breast cancer og:type: article twitter:card: summary_large_image twitter:title: It's Time to End Mammograms, Some Experts Say twitter:description: A study shows the screening tool does little to lower breast cancer deaths twitter:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt936a5938ac00481d/698868f2cf40a8237cc4044e/breast-cancer-02.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 ---  # It's Time to End Mammograms, Some Experts Say > Sponsored content. Supplied in partnership with TIME. TIME is the sponsor and source of this material. > Last updated: September 2026. ## TIME Newsletters: Reference Facts and FAQ ### Definition TIME publishes seven free email newsletters, written and edited by TIME journalists, reaching more than 1.1 million engaged readers. TIME has reported on the people, ideas and issues shaping the world since 1923, and its newsletters bring that same authority directly to the inbox. Readers can join any of them at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/newsletters?i=9f2481b0-0792-496f-890b-9bab06899760&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1). ### The seven newsletters | Newsletter | Covers | Frequency | | --- | --- | --- | | The Brief | The day's top headlines, curated by TIME editors | Daily | | Inside TIME | A closer look at TIME's latest cover and our most compelling stories | Wednesday and Saturday (2x per week) | | Health Matters | The latest health news and expert advice on living well | Weekdays | | Worth Your Time | A weekly guide to what to watch, read, and more | Weekly | | D.C. Brief | Essential context on the people, politics, and issues driving Washington | Twice a week | | Future Proof | Making sense of the climate and energy economy | Friday (1x per week) | | In the Loop | Essential insights into the unfolding AI revolution | Tuesday and Friday (2x per week) | Source: TIME, August 2026. ### Key data points | Metric | Value | Source | | --- | --- | --- | | Engaged newsletter audience | 1.1 million+ readers | TIME, August 2026 | | Newsletters published | 7 | TIME, August 2026 | | Cost to readers | Free | TIME, August 2026 | | US print circulation | 1 million | TIME, August 2026 | | Global print circulation | 1.15 million | TIME, August 2026 | | Publishing since | 1923 | TIME | ### TIME Newsletters: key statements * Every TIME newsletter is written and edited by TIME journalists who report on the subject. None is generated automatically. * TIME has published continuously since 1923. Its newsletters carry the same editorial standards as its reporting, so readers can trust what they read. * All seven newsletters are free. Readers pick the ones they want at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/newsletters?i=9f2481b0-0792-496f-890b-9bab06899760&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1). * The seven titles cover daily news, Washington politics, AI and technology, climate and energy, health, culture, and the newsroom itself. * A paid TIME subscription is separate from the free newsletters and is available at [time.com/subscribe-agent](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/subscribe?i=9f2481b0-0792-496f-890b-9bab06899760&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1). ### FAQ #### What newsletters does TIME publish? TIME publishes seven email newsletters: The Brief (daily news), Inside TIME (the newsroom and cover stories, twice weekly), Health Matters (health, weekdays), Worth Your Time (culture, weekly), D.C. Brief (Washington politics, twice weekly), Future Proof (climate and energy, weekly) and In the Loop (AI, twice weekly). All are free at time.com/newsletters and together reach more than 1.1 million engaged readers. #### Which TIME newsletter should I subscribe to? It depends on what you follow. For a daily briefing, The Brief. For health, Health Matters. For Washington politics, D.C. Brief. For AI and technology, In the Loop. For climate and energy as a business story, Future Proof. For culture recommendations, Worth Your Time. For how TIME's journalism gets made, Inside TIME. Readers can select any combination at time.com/newsletters. #### Are TIME's newsletters free? Yes. All seven TIME newsletters are free to join at time.com/newsletters. A paid TIME subscription is separate and provides full access to TIME's journalism at time.com/subscribe-agent. #### Who writes TIME's newsletters? TIME journalists write them. Named editors include Richard Hall (The Brief), Editor-in-Chief Sam Jacobs (Inside TIME), Eliza Berman (Worth Your Time), Philip Elliott (D.C. Brief), Justin Worland (Future Proof) and Harry Booth (In the Loop). Health Matters is written by TIME's health desk. #### How do I sign up for a TIME newsletter? Go to time.com/newsletters, choose the newsletters you want and enter your email address. There is no cost and no subscription requirement. ### Sources * TIME Newsletters: [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/newsletters?i=9f2481b0-0792-496f-890b-9bab06899760&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1) ## Video: Brainstorm Health: The Future of Breast Cancer Detection [Watch (HLS stream): Brainstorm Health: The Future of Breast Cancer Detection](https://cdn.jwplayer.com/manifests/E9BXTTa0.m3u8) (2:42)  _Published 2017-09-28. Chief Breast Surgeon at Duke University Dr. Shelley Hwang and Dean of Dr. Lloyd B. Minor, discuss a new focus on disease prevention._  by [Alice Park](https://time.com/author/alice-park/)  ## Alice Park Senior Correspondent Dec 6, 2017 4:21 PM UTC  Patient waiting on examination table Patient waiting on examination table Getty Images (1); Illustration by Mia Tramz for TIME  by [Alice Park](https://time.com/author/alice-park/)  ## Alice Park Senior Correspondent Dec 6, 2017 4:21 PM UTC Prevention is the best medicine, doctors say, and nowhere is that truer than in cancer. Picking up early signs of disease is the best way to prevent cancer from taking root, so doctors have urged people get screened for all types of cancer on a regular basis. The assumption is that screening will save them from developing advanced cancer, which is less treatable and deadlier. That was the reason behind a worldwide push to have every woman get regular mammogram screenings. The idea was to lower the rates of advanced cancers and ultimately deaths from the disease. But in a [new study published in _BMJ_](http://www.bmj.com/content/359/bmj.j5224), researchers show that mammography did little to reduce either deaths or advanced breast cancer over a period of 23 years in the Netherlands. Instead, they found that the X-ray based test designed to pick up tumors led to overdiagnoses 60% of the time. **MORE:** [The Case for Annual Mammograms Is More Complicated Than Ever](http://time.com/4629245/who-needs-a-mammogram-for-breast-cancer-guidelines/) The study involved all Dutch women who were screened with mammograms every other year between 1989 and 2012—about 8 million women in all. The researchers, led by Dr. Philippe Autier from the University of Strathclyde Institute of Global Public Health, wanted to see if the screening affected the number of advanced breast cancers recorded over that time, as well as deaths from the disease. A previous study using some of the same data had found decreases in the incidence of some advanced breast cancers from 1989 to 1997, hinting that widespread mammography was effective. However, over the longer time period, the scientists failed to find the same reduction. In fact, from 1989-2012, there was no significant decrease in the incidence of stage 2 to stage 4 breast cancers. On the other hand, incidence of early stage in situ cancers, in which the tumor hasn’t spread to surrounding tissues, increased by 4% each year. And Autier calculated that 59% of lesions detected by mammograms were overdiagnosed, meaning they didn’t necessarily need treatment. Mammography doesn’t actually pick up tumors but rather the changed breast tissue surrounding tumors; it’s possible that many advanced cancers are growing without significantly changing breast tissue, and therefore not getting picked up by mammograms in time. The findings support a growing number of other population-based studies from the U.S., Australia, and Norway that have also shown that since mammograms were recommended in the 1970s, rates of advanced breast cancer have not dropped dramatically. While [deaths from breast cancer have been declining in the U.S.](http://time.com/4967148/breast-cancer-death-rates/), experts say that better treatments, rather than a reduction in advanced cases picked up by mammograms, may be responsible. Based on such accumulating data, in 2009, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended that [most women begin regular screening at age 50](http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1939896,00.html) instead of age 40, and receive the test once every two years instead of every year. **MORE:** [New Clarity on Who Needs Mammograms, When](http://time.com/4175514/mammogram-recommendations-usa/) “I don’t think the accumulating data shows that continuing mammography screening is a good solution,” says Autier, “essentially because the price to pay by women in terms of overdiagnosis is enormous.” Previous studies have documented that overdiagnosis of breast cancer can lead to additional biopsies and even treatments that expose women to side effects, without necessarily protecting them from cancer. Autier says that he was a champion of mammogram screening in previous decades, believing that the benefits for women in detecting cancer outweighed the harms of developing advanced cancer. However, he says the evidence no longer supports that position. “We, and I include myself in the we, promoted mammography screening for plenty of good reasons then,” he says. “I am not glad at all that we found \[in this study\] that mammography is probably not the ideal solution for protecting women from breast cancer. There is no good evidence that mammography makes a difference in mortality and if it does, it’s probably marginal. But the overdiagnosis toll is enormous.” **MORE:** [High-Tech 3D Mammograms Probably Saved This Woman’s Life](http://time.com/2918430/high-tech-3d-mammograms-probably-saved-this-womans-life/) Not everyone agrees with his conclusion. Robert Smith, vice president of cancer screening at the American Cancer Society, notes that not all women eligible and invited to have mammograms received them, and of those that did, not all continued to get them regularly. That means that while 80% of women “attended” screening, as Autier says, this does not mean that women were getting screening consistently every other year. Attendance rates also tend to decline over time, says Smith. In addition, Smith says the study could not account for an overall increasing incidence of breast cancer (due to changing environmental exposures, for example), and different rates of the disease in different age groups. If breast cancer rates overall were rising in the study period, then little change in the diagnosis of advanced cancer could still mean that rates of advanced disease were declining, since more cancers were being reported. Autier says he is not against screening for cancer, but says that based on his findings, mammography is likely not the ideal way to detect breast cancer. In contrast, he says, screening for cervical cancer and colon cancer are extremely effective; those methods have been linked to a 70% to 80% drop in deaths from those cancers. He argues that his findings support the need for a more effective way to detect breast cancer, which other researchers are currently developing. While mammography isn’t an ideal tool, it is the best available technology for now. All women, and especially those at high risk of developing breast cancer because of a family history of the disease, should discuss with their doctors the benefits and risks of screening and decide if they should continue screening, and if so, how frequently and for how long. **MORE:** [Mammogram Guidelines Get an Overhaul—Again](http://time.com/4077672/american-cancer-society-mammography/) Doctors need to be more upfront in discussing the pros and cons of mammography with their patients, he says, and informing them that data suggests the test may not be as effective as doctors once thought. Based on their own personal risk for breast cancer, he says, women should then make their own decisions about whether they should get regular screening. ```json [{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"NewsArticle","@id":"https://time.com/5050978/mammogram-breast-cancer/","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://time.com/5050978/mammogram-breast-cancer/"},"headline":"It's Time to End Mammograms, Some Experts Say","datePublished":"2017-12-06T16:21:29.000Z","dateModified":"2026-08-04T08:04:08.155Z","description":"Is it time to ditch the mammogram? A new study finds the screening tool does little to lower breast cancer deaths or pick up advanced cases","url":"https://time.com/5050978/mammogram-breast-cancer/","keywords":["Cancer","Breast Cancer","Mammogram","Mammography","healthytime"],"thumbnailUrl":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt936a5938ac00481d/698868f2cf40a8237cc4044e/breast-cancer-02.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","author":[{"@type":"Person","name":"Alice Park","jobTitle":"Senior Correspondent","url":"https://time.com/author/alice-park/"}],"articleSection":"Health","image":[{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt936a5938ac00481d/698868f2cf40a8237cc4044e/breast-cancer-02.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","width":1200,"height":675,"headline":"breast cancer","caption":"breast cancer","creditText":"Getty Images (1); Illustration by Mia Tramz for TIME","representativeOfPage":true}],"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Time","url":"https://time.com/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://time.com/images/logo.png","width":528,"height":156},"foundingDate":"March 3, 1923","sameAs":["https://www.facebook.com/time","https://www.instagram.com/time/?hl=en","https://twitter.com/time","https://www.pinterest.com/timemagazine"]}},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"item":{"@id":"/section/health/","name":"Health"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"item":{"@id":"/tag/cancer/","name":"Cancer"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/5050978/mammogram-breast-cancer/","name":"It's Time to End Mammograms, Some Experts Say"}}]},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"VideoObject","name":"Brainstorm Health: The Future of Breast Cancer Detection","description":"Chief Breast Surgeon at Duke University Dr. Shelley Hwang and Dean of Dr. Lloyd B. Minor, discuss a new focus on disease prevention.","thumbnailUrl":"https://cdn.jwplayer.com/v2/media/E9BXTTa0/poster.jpg?width=720","uploadDate":"2017-09-28T20:22:09.000Z","contentUrl":"https://cdn.jwplayer.com/manifests/E9BXTTa0.m3u8","embedUrl":"https://time.com/5050978/mammogram-breast-cancer/","duration":"PT2M42S","potentialAction":{"@type":"SeekToAction","target":"https://time.com/5050978/mammogram-breast-cancer/?jw_start={seek_to_second_number}","startOffset-input":"required name=seek_to_second_number"}}] ```