New Study on the Need for Mammograms

The "GMA" team of insiders analyzes some of the biggest stories trending this morning.
5:14 | 01/10/17

Coming up in the next {{countdown}} {{countdownlbl}}

Coming up next:

{{nextVideo.title}}

{{nextVideo.description}}

Skip to this video now

Now Playing:

{{currentVideo.title}}

More information on this video
Enhanced full screen
Explore related content
Comments
Related Extras
Related Videos
Video Transcript
Transcript for New Study on the Need for Mammograms
Back with a special edition of our big board. Dr. Ashton and Dr. Besser are here at the table with us. Book ends. We're ready. Ready to go. We'll start with that new study sparking a big mammogram debate. Researchers in Denmark found that one in three breast tumors discovered through the exam may be overdiagnosed and that means they're identified as more life-threatening than they really are leading to unnecessary treatment. That is what the study is saying. I'm getting the side eye right now from Jen. What's your take? I think the headline has been boiled down to early screening doesn't work. No such thing as early screening in breast cancer. It's screening. The point is to save lives. It did not look at lives saved but started enrollment in 1980 when the technology from it was not what it is today but talks about the concept does every cancer need treatment and that is going to be a hard pill to swallow for doctors and patients to tell a woman, you have cancer, but we're not going to treat it because it's never going to kill you. That's the dcis realm which is called that stage zero. You know, when you talk about treating all cancers, you have to talk about the downside of that, as well. What this study found was that by doing screening, they looked at half the country started screaming and half didn't, the screening program didn't cut down on the number of women who ended up having aggressive breast cancer and the reason that matters is that if a lot of these cancers that are being picked up never would have caused a problem, then you have all of these women who are suffering the side effects of treatment which could be future cancers, which is not a small thing, the side effects of damage of chemotherapy and other things to the body and the goal of a screening program, pick it up early and make a difference and save lives. If you're not saving lives then you have to say, what are we doing here in putting all of these women through this treatment. There's so much controversy here and I can feel the passion coming from you two. What needs to be done to Fick the screening issues? I think there's a couple of things. First thing we need better screening tests. You need a screening test that will be able to say to a person we found this lump here. But this one we can tell isn't going to cause any problems and we're not there yet then we have to be able to say, okay, who are the right women to screen at what ages? Are there certain things we can tell based on their genetics and family history, you need to screen starting at age 40, you can wait till 50. I agree with most of that. The controversy and what gets me hot under the collar is that media and the medical community alike always boils these studies down to one line, mammograms don't work. Mammograms are bad. Mammograms don't save lives and, "A," I disagree with that as a woman's health specialist. "B," until we provide an alternative to bash them is Tant mount to a war on women. That is what gets me upset. I remember where there was a debate about self-exams. Hello, that's how I found my lump by self-exam. A mammogram did not detect the tumor. An ultrasound did. It's not one size fits all. No. I don't see this as a war on women. I think what the goal here is to make sure that women aren't getting overtreated and I think, you know, men are getting overtreated with -- for prostate cancer and there are a lot of women getting overtreated. We need to do more to make it work for them. With an alternative. We have another medical question for you two even though -- Bring it on. How about this, Botox for millennials. There's a new book out called "Botox nation" saying younger women are aggressively targeted in hopes they'll be lifetime customers of the Botox -- Rich, don't you think it should start in the delivery room? Why wait? As a pediatrician. Baby Botox. It's a strategy and why go after people who don't even have wrinkles. It's one word, money. It is about money. It is about changing the perception of what's Normal and you're talking -- you know, let's start with women in their 20s so that they won't go on to develop wrinkles. I like my wrinkles. I smile a lot. I get a lot of wrinkles here. I don't want to lose them. When I'm watching an actor on TV I want to know are they happy or are they sad? Look at the faces and it's like, I have no clue. Don't you think we have more pressing problems in medicine than to talk about Botox and is someone getting it and are they not getting it? Do people understand Botox, though. I think they're judgmental about it. Look, anything in moderation, I think could be fine. For example, I'm actually 94 years old but I've had good Botox and I think I look remarkably well preserved. I mean, look, I agree with rich. If you can't show facial expression, my kids can't tell I'm cowing at them, there's going to be a problem. I think it changes the social norm. If who people are seeing on TV, everyone is botoxed then there's pressure that I'm not going to do well in the workplace unless I have Botox. For a lot of money it's 300 bucks out of pocket. It's not -- Male/female double standard too. Huge, huge. We got to do this again, Michael. I like this. I'm just, you know --

This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.

{"id":44673627,"title":"New Study on the Need for Mammograms","duration":"5:14","description":"The \"GMA\" team of insiders analyzes some of the biggest stories trending this morning.","url":"/GMA/video/study-mammograms-44673627","section":"GMA","mediaType":"default"}