4 ms·
Seems like a straightforward optimization problem. Only alert someone if the expected probability of disease is high enough to be worth the risks of radiation a
by natrius 12y ago
Seems like a straightforward optimization problem. Only alert someone if the expected probability of disease is high enough to be worth the risks of radiation and unnecessary procedures.
- zwieback 12y agoMany tests top out at 50% or less and even if the specificity is high you can't necessarily say whether you have a bad form of the disease or not. That's the problem with PSA testing for prostate cancer.
- alsocasey 12y agoIt is until you realize how complex it is to quantify the costs to be balanced (early detection treatment costs, quality-adjusted life years saved, radiation exposure risks, etc.)
- UrMomReadsHN 12y agoWhich is anything but straightforward. There also isn't a straightforward way to tell if a detected cancer/precancer is actually harmful and needs treatment. Ductal carcinoma in situ is almost solely detected through routine mammograms. While 30 or so percent of these lesions will go on to become invasive breast cancer most will cause no symptoms, won't progress to cancer, and be harmless. Since there is no way to tell which cases of DCIS are harmful, usually cases of DCIS are treated as if they are invasive cancer. Now, this poses an interesting question - what is an acceptable rate of over treatment? When does the harm outweigh the benefits? Those questions i don't have an answer to. Though the PSA test is no longer recommended by some organizations for similar reasons. Same with the breast self exam. When does detecting a cancer with no symptoms actually improve quality of life or longevity? These are very complex questions.