3 ms·
>I shudder to think what could have happened, had she delayed the exam. There's a good chance nothing would have happened. Screening programs massively overdia
by Tossrock 15y ago
>I shudder to think what could have happened, had she delayed the exam.
There's a good chance nothing would have happened. Screening programs massively overdiagnose non-malignant breast cancer as malignant: http://www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj.b2587.abstract http://www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj.b2587.abstract
- lreeves 15y agoThat article claims a 35% overdiagnosis rate. While high, I wouldn't call that a good chance and wouldn't bet my life on it.
- pmiller2 15y agoA 35% overdiagnosis rate means that for every 3 correct cancer diagnoses made, about one error occurs. That means if the diagnosis is cancer, about 75% of the time it actually is cancer. If the rate of false negatives is small enough, I think I would bet my life on that. Edit: Sorry, I just noticed that what I wrote seems to imply I disagree with you when, in fact, I agree with you.
- tomwalker 15y agoBowel screening problems throw up issues with mortality too. I was at a recent review of screening at a group of UK hospitals and it was found that the average age of death is the same for those with bowel cancer that were detected by screening, detected by accident, detected after an emergency or detected at autopsy.