Rapid responses are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on thebmj.com. Although a selection of rapid responses will be included online and in print as readers' letters, their first appearance online means that they are published articles. If you need the url (web address) of an individual response, perhaps for citation purposes, simply click on the response headline and copy the url from the browser window. Letters are indexed in PubMed.
the resources tied up up in unfocussed breast screening are significant, radiologist and radiographer time being a potential redirection to benefit the whole NHS.
the potential of alternatives to radiation based screening, based upon genetics and cellular populations in serum warrent review as cost effective alternatives.
the debate within radiology has always been about mammographic radiation induced cancer and resource diversion; as much as other iatrogenic morbidity and the value of whole population screening versus cohort selection.
at a time of acute on chronic radiologist workforce restriction across the UK NHS this would be a timely debate.
let's hope politics responds openly and supports science over pride; times have moved on, knowledge is greater, different techniques now present, and decisions taken in the past based upon early trials have been superseded by experience.
and indeed the cohort of folk who missed being screened are a useful control group for VFM analysis, use it!