3 ms·

Precisely. I don't know any "did early detection which lead to unnecessary chemo" stories.. I know people who died due to the lack of early detection. I also

Precisely. I don't know any "did early detection which lead to unnecessary chemo" stories.. I know people who died due to the lack of early detection. I also know people who survived due to accidental pre-symptomatic detection because of unrelated ER scans where they'd have been in stage 4 before having any symptoms. So more screenings for more types of cancer are absolutely needed. It's more treatable early, and you will have better outcomes. Patients might worry about lab results is not a good reason not to have early detection. Patients can self select if they are so sensitive.

vidarh 2y ago
How would you distinguish a necessary and unnecessary chemo after the fact? Nobody would give chemo if the tumor is known to benign, after all. An unnecessary chemo will be one where they couldn't tell, and the chemo ensures they wont tell. The only way you'll know is from aggregate mortality statistics not budging. The other aspect is that even if a tumour isn't, earlier detection is often not reducing mortality any more once you get to a decent baseline. The evidence often does not support early screening in general. Early screening for specific subsets of the population have better results, but are also not unambiguously helpful.
- wrycoder 2y ago
  Typically, you biopsy the tumor to determine appropriate treatment.
  - vidarh 2y ago
    And that is 1) not risk free - though it's low risk, have too many false positives, and you do more harm than you prevent, 2) do enough biopsies and you will still get false positives.