3 ms·
This is widely discussed in medical circles, but the real problem is a different one: It's sometimes hard to know what helps and what doesn't. You may see some
by hannob 6y ago
This is widely discussed in medical circles, but the real problem is a different one: It's sometimes hard to know what helps and what doesn't.
You may see something that may lead to a cancer. But you really don't know. It may be a) harmless, b) lead to a cancer, c) a mistake in your test. If it's b) then treating it early is good. If it's a) or c) then treating it early will ultimately harm the patient. If your test finds mainly a) and c) then your test may ultimately do more harm than good.
- sterlind 6y agoIsn't this the idea behind watchful waiting? You have an early signal so you follow up with periodic tests to see if it goes away or shows signs of malignancy. Eventually we'll have studies that show the conditional probability of different cancer outcomes based on these early signals, and from there we'll have a protocol to get the best outcomes, reducing the chance of malignant cancer while minimizing cost and medical intervention.
- forgotmypwbctbi 6y agoit is at minimum an early warning for lifestyle change
- jfk13 6y agoEven if you could predict with certainty that the patient is going to develop cancer in 10 years, and you know of a course of treatment you could undertake that will ultimately prevent that cancer developing, you still may not be able to say whether this is the best use of the patient's time and resources today. (And the patient can't be sure either.)
- shard 6y agoSo the best course to take seems to be a combination of the probabilities of each case along with the risk tolerance of the patient, thus it is not a question the medical community can answer, but needs to be an individual discussion with each patient.