(no title)
majorchord | 17 days ago
Is it though? Isn't it possible you could be early-detecting something serious that is much easier to treat now vs when symptoms appear?
majorchord | 17 days ago
Is it though? Isn't it possible you could be early-detecting something serious that is much easier to treat now vs when symptoms appear?
alexey-salmin|16 days ago
There's some support for this view because agressive screening for thyroid and prostate cancers increases the number of surgeries a lot but doesn't seem affect the mortality rates.
Risks from a surgery are non-negligible, if you perform it to treat a low-risk condition it may be a net loss in the end.
So you're technically right about the "early-detecting" part, but the "much easier to treat" step is problematic because it's unclear what a net-positive treatment looks like for low-risk cases. Probably it comes down to yearly monitoring of whatever was detected, not the actual treatment.
sxg|17 days ago
Nothing in medicine comes for free—everything is a tradeoff.
p0pularopinion|17 days ago
It could be. It could also be the cade that you undergo invasive surgery for something that would have never caused you problems within your life. The problem is that cancer isn‘t cancer. Even if it originates from the same tissue, some tumors behave very different from others.
bookofjoe|16 days ago
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33360667/