Yes exactly. In fact mammograms are already double-read and agreement is quite high, so this is definitely one of those types of tests. There are benign masses that are radiologically impossible to distinguish until you get a biopsy.
Time to bring out the pigeons.
Having just read the paper again, It’s fascinating.
In fact, "mammogram indeterminate" is a better diagnosis.
This is the general argument against testing for prostate cancer in non-symptomatic patients. If you only test patients that has symptoms then the rate of false positives goes down. The downside is that you only catch late stage patients where treatment might be too late. The alternative (which is used for mammography) is that for every person saved, an order of magnitude more will be permanent harmed by unnecessary surgery.
It's also why breast cancer screening is not recommended for everyone, just women over 50.
For women over 50 there has been a decades long sincere effort by the medical community to take this all into account and the consensus is that screening makes sense in that population.
It's not, though.
Possible ≠ certain or even likely.
Screening tests are used to determine whether there are indications for more invasive but more conclusive diagnostic tests.
Yeah but "possible cancer", taken literally like that, is everyone.