4 ms·
> The nanosensor correctly identified healthy individuals 98% of the time, Since pancreatic cancer would have to be detected before any symptoms occur for this
by pfdietz 2y ago
> The nanosensor correctly identified healthy individuals 98% of the time,
Since pancreatic cancer would have to be detected before any symptoms occur for this to be useful, the test would have to be applied to everyone. The incidence of PC is 1 per 10,000 per year. If the test is applied once per year, then for every true positive result there would be 200 false positives (actually worse, since it only detects PC 3/4 of the time.)
- newsclues 2y agoIf you can cheaply test everyone, and narrow down the number of people requiring more expensive testing, you can potentially, at scale, detect and limit negative health outcomes. There is both an economic and societal benefit to testing and treating people.
- pfdietz 2y agoIf the more expensive testing is at all invasive (for example, biopsies) or still has false positives (benign tumors, say) then it could end up being a net negative. This effect has bedeviled screening for other cancers, like breast and prostate cancers.
- steveBK123 2y agoSure but the current state of affairs is clearly not optimal from an individual patients perspective. You notice this as you hit 40, 50 years old. I know multiple "woops we don't screen often/early/proactively for that" cancer deaths in mid 30s to mid 50s. I even know a few "wow good thing you had that CT scan for xyz, we just found some unrelated Stage 2 cancer elsewhere" people. I know ZERO "oops false positive, we killed you with an invasive procedure" deaths. I know they happen, just clear to me its less often than the above.
- jf22 2y agoFrom now on we should probably make all medical decisions treatment decisions based upon your steveBK's personal experiences.
- steveBK123 2y agoMaybe you are young and/or lucky, but you'll find over time an increasingly disconcerting amount of friends&family dying preventable/otherwise treatable (with screening) deaths from cancer. Note I said "from an individuals perspective". It is possible for the system to be optimized from a cost/benefit system level perspective without it providing the best possible outcome for each individual. Given that its run by the government & for-profit insurance, this is probably the case. I think it is a bit hard to argue that the US medical system in general is perfect, and beyond reproach. Let alone the gaps in our pro-active cancer screening. Places like South Korea and China do far more, with less.
- jf22 2y agoCan you please let me know which part of my reply made you think I was arguing that the US medical system is perfect?
- steveBK123 2y agoMost of these symptom-less-until-you-are-dead cancers are very very slow moving and mostly hit above certain ages. It's all in tuning the population & frequency. You could test those aged 30+ or 40+ every 5, maybe even every 10 years.
- pfdietz 2y agoI understand the recommendation for breast cancer screening is that women should stop doing it above age (I think) 70, even though the incidence of BC continues to increase with age, due to declining benefit/risk.
- steveBK123 2y agoCorrect a lot of stuff can stop being screened for because of incidence of disease, how slowly it moves, expected remaining lifespan, and ability of elderly to endure whatever treatment they would receive anyway.