Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*


This is a news article about a study that hasn't been published.


I understand not wanting to overdiagnose at the risk of harming healthy women, but as someone with a history of breast cancer in her family, I would so much rather be safe than sorry.


until the extra screening radiation actually gives you breast cancer... >.>


Ultrasounds could be better utilized and they don’t give off radiation. Just had an US with my mammogram.


true, but you're dealing with a paper that's was made in the 1980s.


[Family history](https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/breast_center/breast_cancers_other_conditions/family_history_breast_cancer.html) effects screening schedules. Just because a radiologist publishes a paper doesn’t mean the current recommendations are incorrect. We will have to wait and see.


The implicit is that the study and political guideline in question wasn't founded in the best way possible with some blinding effects removed or ignored. Besides its been 40-50 years since the first study, and the population has grown and aged and shifted in its racial makeup to begin to change the goalposts (racial weighting matters in science).


This is why US guidelines are better. See USPSTF or ACS .