> If we can screen for cancer earlier we will save a huge number of lives (and prevent a lot of pain and misery).
It's not clear.
The last time I looked at these data (about a decade ago), we were catching more cancers than ever and people were living longer. But really we were screening earlier so time from detection->death was longer.
Some of these cancers didn't matter. The studies I refer to above were for breast cancer. In the case of prostate cancer, most men have it when they get old. It develops slowly and most patients "die with it but not of it", i.e. it had nothing to do with their death. For those cases intervention is unnecessary pain and misery. And indeed, I believe the treatment regime in the US is now "watchful waiting" with rare intervention.
There has been a revolution (several, actually) in cancer treatment over the past decade and the prognoses for several are much more promising. So this comment is specifically about your general hypothesis, not to criticise your aim in commenting with it.
It's not clear.
The last time I looked at these data (about a decade ago), we were catching more cancers than ever and people were living longer. But really we were screening earlier so time from detection->death was longer.
Some of these cancers didn't matter. The studies I refer to above were for breast cancer. In the case of prostate cancer, most men have it when they get old. It develops slowly and most patients "die with it but not of it", i.e. it had nothing to do with their death. For those cases intervention is unnecessary pain and misery. And indeed, I believe the treatment regime in the US is now "watchful waiting" with rare intervention.
There has been a revolution (several, actually) in cancer treatment over the past decade and the prognoses for several are much more promising. So this comment is specifically about your general hypothesis, not to criticise your aim in commenting with it.