Neat rows of grapevines run down the slopes of the Cotes de Beaune, all the way to the gravel driveway at Chateau de Corton Andre. The castle's traditional Burgundy black-and-yellow-tiled roof glistens in the autumn sun.
Ana Julia Torres cares for hundreds of abused animals at a refuge in Cali, Colombia, including this lion named Jupiter. Many of the animals were previously owned by drug traffickers who have been arrested.
Credit Juan Forero / NPR
There are some 800 animals at the refuge run by Torres, but Jupiter the lion is her favorite.
A mammographer prepares a screen-film mammography test for patient Alicia Maldonado at a hospital in Los Angeles.
Credit Damian Dovarganes / AP
Over the last three decades, diagnoses of early-stage breast cancers soared, largely due to routine mammogram screening. But the incidence of late-stage cancers declined only slightly. That leads some to question whether mammograms are really doing what they're supposed to — catching early cancers before they progress.
The endless debate over routine mammograms is getting another kick from an analysis that sharply questions whether the test really does what it's supposed to.
Dr. H. Gilbert Welch, coauthor of the analysis of mammography's impact, which was just published in The New England Journal of Medicine, tell Shots that the aim was to "get down to a very basic question."