3 ms·

> For instance, cancer screening with mammography, ultrasound, and blood testing has dramatically increased the detection of breast, thyroid, and prostate cance

> For instance, cancer screening with mammography, ultrasound, and blood testing has dramatically increased the detection of breast, thyroid, and prostate cancer during the past quarter century. We’re treating hundreds of thousands more people each year for these diseases than we ever have. Yet only a tiny reduction in death, if any, has resulted. I take issue with that. Here are the statistics for breast cancer and prostate cancer (new cases and deaths) by year: http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/prost.html http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/prost.html The incidence of thyroid cancer has in fact increased, but it was hardly a killer in the first place. I find the 'turtles-and-rabbits' analogy to be misleading. Plenty of 'turtles' can undergo a transformation and become much faster (at killing you).

dhimes 11y ago
Remember, the new cases curve is roughly the slope of the total cases curve. I read your data as more-or-less supportive of the author's claim.
- puzzlingcaptcha 11y ago
  If you want to consider that the statement "We’re treating hundreds of thousands more people each year for these diseases than we ever have" refers to total cases then well, that's always going to be true. Besides, I am more interested in the statistics of mortality.
  - dhimes 11y ago
    > well, that's always going to be true. unless they die > I am more interested in the statistics of mortality "Death rates have not changed significantly over 2002-2012"
    - puzzlingcaptcha 11y ago
      Routine screening for breast cancer started in the 80's. http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/ld/breast.html http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/ld/breast.html
      - dhimes 11y ago
        Sorry, I really want to understand your point but I am unable. You disagree with the thesis that more intensive screening and identification of these health issues (since the '90s) have increased the number of people diagnosed with the disease, but has not significantly impacted the mortality rates. This seems to be aligned to the stats you quoted. What am I missing?
        puzzlingcaptcha 11y ago
        I don't disagree with the increase in the total number of diagnosed cases, there is nothing to disagree with. I disagree with calling a reduction in the number of deaths since the 90's by half (prostate) and by a third (breast) "a tiny reduction, if any".
        dhimes 11y ago
        OK, but understand that you are also disagreeing with the site you linked itself. Look at the 'data trend' link. Not trying to be inciteful- kind of a personal issue with me atm, perhaps with you, too.
davak 11y ago
MD but not an oncologist. Some of these cases of breast "cancer" would likely resolve on their own if the screening hadn't detected them. We all have "cancer" cells that our body does a pretty good job handling on a routine basis. Many people would die of something else other than their prostate cancer if we didn't screen for it. By no means am I saying that screening isn't valuable, it truly is wonderful. However, at some point screening tests get to the point of being too sensitive and causing more harm than good. "Overdiagnosed" is an interesting read about this topic.

dhimes 11y ago

Remember, the new cases curve is roughly the slope of the total cases curve. I read your data as more-or-less supportive of the author's claim.

puzzlingcaptcha 11y ago
If you want to consider that the statement "We’re treating hundreds of thousands more people each year for these diseases than we ever have" refers to total cases then well, that's always going to be true. Besides, I am more interested in the statistics of mortality.
- dhimes 11y ago
  > well, that's always going to be true. unless they die > I am more interested in the statistics of mortality "Death rates have not changed significantly over 2002-2012"
  - puzzlingcaptcha 11y ago
    Routine screening for breast cancer started in the 80's. http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/ld/breast.html http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/ld/breast.html
    - dhimes 11y ago
      Sorry, I really want to understand your point but I am unable. You disagree with the thesis that more intensive screening and identification of these health issues (since the '90s) have increased the number of people diagnosed with the disease, but has not significantly impacted the mortality rates. This seems to be aligned to the stats you quoted. What am I missing?
      - puzzlingcaptcha 11y ago
        I don't disagree with the increase in the total number of diagnosed cases, there is nothing to disagree with. I disagree with calling a reduction in the number of deaths since the 90's by half (prostate) and by a third (breast) "a tiny reduction, if any".
        dhimes 11y ago
        OK, but understand that you are also disagreeing with the site you linked itself. Look at the 'data trend' link. Not trying to be inciteful- kind of a personal issue with me atm, perhaps with you, too.

davak 11y ago

MD but not an oncologist. Some of these cases of breast "cancer" would likely resolve on their own if the screening hadn't detected them. We all have "cancer" cells that our body does a pretty good job handling on a routine basis. Many people would die of something else other than their prostate cancer if we didn't screen for it. By no means am I saying that screening isn't valuable, it truly is wonderful. However, at some point screening tests get to the point of being too sensitive and causing more harm than good. "Overdiagnosed" is an interesting read about this topic.