I think about 25% of what gets picked up by mammograms is DCIS now, and once it's found it usually gets treated the same as IDC, with surgery and radiation. But not all cases of DCIS would progress, so a good proportion of people are getting overtreated. Having surgery when you don't really need to is pretty harmful. There have been some studies (in Norway and Sweden) that have shown greater incidence of cancer in women who got screened with mammograms, compared to those who weren't. It meant that mammography was picking up cancers that would have naturally regressed on their own. But strangely enough, the increase in detection of early breast cancer hasn't led to a proportional drop in more advanced cancers. And as the article above says, the aggressive cancers are unlikely to respond to treatment whether they are caught early or late. Mammograms may save some lives, but how many people have to be screened to do it? Is it a worthwhile use of limited resources? Maybe for women over 50, or those identified at high risk, but I don't think it's necessary for all women between 40 and 50.

Here's what I have an issue with: instead of focusing on how to better identify cancers that will spread and how to better treat these cancers we are told let's not screen.

TNBC is aggressive and generally responds well to chemo, so catching it at earlier stage is important andscreening can be valuable. That said, I am all for researching treatments, since screening is going to miss some cancers and you need something to work.