Over the 10 years, absolutely.
In fact, the modelling calculations are between 400 and 600 per year. We talk about that being, if you can imagine, a jumbo jet full of women going down every year, based on the guideline recommendations not to screen.
You're absolutely right. I think there's an emphasis on using absolute numbers only from the task force. It actually states that they recommend only using absolute numbers, not saying, “You'd save 50% of your patients,” or “If I got breast cancer, I'd be 50% less likely to die if I were screening regularly.” They don't want us to say it that way. They want to say it as one in 1,000, because it makes it seem like a much smaller number.
Frankly, that's a manipulation technique, in my opinion. It is a well-known manipulation technique to try to control the narrative by controlling the way information is delivered.
I think both types of numbers should be used. In fact, I think more than those two types of numbers should be used.
You're absolutely right. For an individual woman who gets breast cancer—and it's very common, as we know—the benefit of mammography is huge. Most people don't get it. You can minimize it by talking about absolute numbers, but if you are that woman who gets it, it makes a huge difference to you.
It's just playing roulette not to screen. You're just hoping you don't get breast cancer, but if you do, you missed your opportunity.