Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) has written a letter to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HSS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, asking her to strike from an HHS Web site the recent mammography screening guidelines issued by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).
The USPSTF created a firestorm of controversy in November 2009 when the panel rescinded its recommendation that women ages 40 to 49 receive regular mammography screening. The USPSTF said that existing literature did not support the use of routine screening in this age group, a finding that has been disputed by a number of medical societies and women's healthcare groups.
Vitter sponsored an amendment to the recently passed healthcare reform legislation that requires the federal government to set aside the USPSTF guidelines. On May 11, he followed that with a letter to Sebelius asking HHS to remove the guidelines from the Web site of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), adding "that they, and all other agencies under your purview, immediately cease all promotion of the impugned recommendations."
Vitter describes the guidelines as "ill-conceived" and developed via a process without transparency and without input from "those with experience and expertise in the field." The AHRQ page with the guidelines can be viewed by clicking here.
Related Reading
Does mammogram row signal time for policy shift? April 7, 2010
Authors of Nordic mammo study no strangers to controversy, April 6, 2010
Mammography advocates weigh in on Nordic study, March 26, 2010
Breast cancer screens don't save lives: Nordic study, March 25, 2010
Norwegian mammo study claims to find cancer 'spontaneous regression,' November 24, 2008
Copyright © 2010 AuntMinnie.com
![A normal mammogram confirmed by three-year radiologic follow-up illustrates reader-marked regions of interest (ROIs) during (A) unaided (round 1) and (B) artificial intelligence (AI)–assisted (round 2) reading. Each colored dot represents an ROI for recall by a human reader. Readers could mark more than one ROI per case, represented by multiple dots of the same color. During AI-assisted reading, the AI system displayed three visible prompts: two with suspicion of malignancy scores of 35% (left mediolateral oblique [L MLO] and craniocaudal [L CC]) and one with a suspicion of malignancy score of 10% (right craniocaudal [R CC]), shown as polygonal overlays. Without AI, six of 10 readers (60%) marked a false-positive ROI. With AI assistance, this fell to two of 10 (20%). R MLO = right mediolateral oblique.](https://img.auntminnie.com/mindful/smg/workspaces/default/uploads/2026/07/2026-07-14-radiology-mammogram-ai-auto-bias.H0bYO8QlWs.jpg?auto=format%2Ccompress&fit=crop&h=100&q=70&w=100)
![A normal mammogram confirmed by three-year radiologic follow-up illustrates reader-marked regions of interest (ROIs) during (A) unaided (round 1) and (B) artificial intelligence (AI)–assisted (round 2) reading. Each colored dot represents an ROI for recall by a human reader. Readers could mark more than one ROI per case, represented by multiple dots of the same color. During AI-assisted reading, the AI system displayed three visible prompts: two with suspicion of malignancy scores of 35% (left mediolateral oblique [L MLO] and craniocaudal [L CC]) and one with a suspicion of malignancy score of 10% (right craniocaudal [R CC]), shown as polygonal overlays. Without AI, six of 10 readers (60%) marked a false-positive ROI. With AI assistance, this fell to two of 10 (20%). R MLO = right mediolateral oblique.](https://img.auntminnie.com/mindful/smg/workspaces/default/uploads/2026/07/2026-07-14-radiology-mammogram-ai-auto-bias.H0bYO8QlWs.jpg?auto=format%2Ccompress&dpr=2&fit=crop&h=167&q=70&w=250)
