The problem also is that diagnosis doesn't stop progressing. Today's opponents to cancer screening often argue with data from the 1990s. On the other hand propo

The problem also is that diagnosis doesn't stop progressing. Today's opponents to cancer screening often argue with data from the 1990s. On the other hand proponents often refer to data of underpowered, badly designed trials. Also, there exists no real guideline as to what would be "sufficient evidence". How much better would the survival of screening participants would have to be? In exchange, how much pain may be inflicted on people who get false-positive results. This discussion is extremely difficult. And once you are in the situation that you or somebody close to you get's diagnosed with cancer, it becomes really difficult to deal with arguments like: "On average the whole population does not benefit from you having diagnosed your cancer early so that after some small surgery, you'll continue living as if nothing had happened."