4 ms·
The appropriate treatment depends on the risk of death. Chemotherapy is among the worst - probably 20% of people who get chemo die because of the chemo. If ther
by lukeschlather 9y ago
The appropriate treatment depends on the risk of death. Chemotherapy is among the worst - probably 20% of people who get chemo die because of the chemo. If there's a 20% chance that the cancer will kill you, there's zero utility to a treatment that has a 20% chance of killing you.
Since none of the treatments we have are 100% effective, they can be worse than useless, actually increasing the overall death rate, and ensuring that the end of life is long, drawn-out, and horribly painful.
- jonahx 9y agoUnderstood. But my original question was inspired by greg's claim that early diagnosis of fast-growing cancers typically won't help, because they're so fast. I was asking if it would feasible to do monthly at home blood tests as a way to detect even rapid growth cancers (and assuming that would be enough time). The point you're making seems orthogonal to me. Unless you're claiming that treatment is never worthwhile for such cancers, no matter how early they're detected, but Greg's original statement seemed to imply otherwise.
- lukeschlather 9y agoI read Greg's claim (and it's similar to mine) as meaning that there's no test to distinguish between fatal cancers and benign cancers, and this test doesn't claim to be such a test. Even if you have a test that's 100% accurate at detecting cancer, it's only useful if it only detects cancers that are likely to be fatal, otherwise unnecessary treatment will be expensive, both in dollars and in deaths.
- tyingq 9y ago>Chemotherapy is among the worst - probably 20% of people who get chemo die because of the chemo. That's likely not right. I would believe something more boxed in...like 20% of patients who die within 30 days of starting chemotherapy died from it versus the cancer.