7 ms·

Are you prepared to make the decision, "I have cancer but statistically it has a relatively low likelihood of killing me before I would die of other causes, so

by mort96 2y ago

Are you prepared to make the decision, "I have cancer but statistically it has a relatively low likelihood of killing me before I would die of other causes, so I won't do anything about it"? Are most people?

thimkerbell 2y ago
It might provide enough impetus for getting you to avoid sugar and processed meats though.
- mort96 2y ago
  Has avoiding those things been shown to stop existing cancer? I thought those foods just increased the chance of getting cancer in the first place. But I'm totally ignorant here, it sounds plausible that some carcinogens work by worsening cancer which would otherwise have been benign, I just haven't heard about that
  - stubish 2y ago
    Depending on the type of cancer, there are correlations with diet changes and slowing growth of cancer. Causation isn't known yet, with the speculations about reasons veganism works I've seen all refuted. Low carb effects seems about increasing ketones and reducing glucose levels in the blood, which I think is being studied with some lung cancers. Type of cancer is important, with different diet changes positively correlated different with cancers not returning (and the wrong change could possibly even promote growth, as different cancers 'feed' on different things). Prostate, breast and lung cancer I'm aware of there being these correlations.
nick__m 2y ago
There is a spectrum between invasive treatment and not doing anything. You could have a scan 3 months later and if there is no progression the doctor schedule a scan 6 months later and then 12 months... If there is a progression he schedule an appointmentwith an oncologist.
- vidarh 2y ago
  The problem is that once the odds of benefiting from early detection is low enough, and the rate of a given condition is low enough, it takes very little for other things to dominate. E.g. how many of them end up leading to unnecessary biopsies, or scans that are themselves introducing a risk? For any condition there will be a threshold where too much screening becomes harmful because you're doing so many unnecessary tests that rare errors / accidents come to dominate the benefits. The question isn't if there's a threshold where more scans do more harm than good, but where it is. For some things, increased screening will be unambiguously good. For some it takes work to figure it out.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ggm 2y ago
If you're male and live to over 60, you are going to be in this camp regarding the PSA and intervention for Prostate Cancer. Two GPs, a Urologist and an Epidemiologist (none of whom know each other btw) have all said to me "you will die with this not of this" because they can trace the dynamics of my presentation. Enhanced imaging and blood tests alone didn't do this: their intuition based on progression and behaviour of the system as a whole did. Treat the person, have a longterm relationship with your health provider.

by mort96 2y ago

thimkerbell 2y ago

It might provide enough impetus for getting you to avoid sugar and processed meats though.

mort96 2y ago
Has avoiding those things been shown to stop existing cancer? I thought those foods just increased the chance of getting cancer in the first place. But I'm totally ignorant here, it sounds plausible that some carcinogens work by worsening cancer which would otherwise have been benign, I just haven't heard about that
- stubish 2y ago
  Depending on the type of cancer, there are correlations with diet changes and slowing growth of cancer. Causation isn't known yet, with the speculations about reasons veganism works I've seen all refuted. Low carb effects seems about increasing ketones and reducing glucose levels in the blood, which I think is being studied with some lung cancers. Type of cancer is important, with different diet changes positively correlated different with cancers not returning (and the wrong change could possibly even promote growth, as different cancers 'feed' on different things). Prostate, breast and lung cancer I'm aware of there being these correlations.

nick__m 2y ago

There is a spectrum between invasive treatment and not doing anything. You could have a scan 3 months later and if there is no progression the doctor schedule a scan 6 months later and then 12 months... If there is a progression he schedule an appointmentwith an oncologist.

vidarh 2y ago
The problem is that once the odds of benefiting from early detection is low enough, and the rate of a given condition is low enough, it takes very little for other things to dominate. E.g. how many of them end up leading to unnecessary biopsies, or scans that are themselves introducing a risk? For any condition there will be a threshold where too much screening becomes harmful because you're doing so many unnecessary tests that rare errors / accidents come to dominate the benefits. The question isn't if there's a threshold where more scans do more harm than good, but where it is. For some things, increased screening will be unambiguously good. For some it takes work to figure it out.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

ggm 2y ago

If you're male and live to over 60, you are going to be in this camp regarding the PSA and intervention for Prostate Cancer. Two GPs, a Urologist and an Epidemiologist (none of whom know each other btw) have all said to me "you will die with this not of this" because they can trace the dynamics of my presentation. Enhanced imaging and blood tests alone didn't do this: their intuition based on progression and behaviour of the system as a whole did. Treat the person, have a longterm relationship with your health provider.