You don't need to show that it's possible to avoid false positives. That's doctors being irrational.
You only need to show that it's possible to build a diagnostic system that's better than no testing, and I have shown that already
If you have an growing mass in your body, then if it's cancer, after a year, it might be too late for treatment. Or it may turn out to be nothing: a benign tumor / cyst / fat deposit in an unusual place. Or it may be slow-growing prostate cancer that you can live with for another 20 years, and maybe it's the chemotherapy that will do you in. It's really not that clear-cut in medicine.
To give you have another example: let's say that the risk of appendicitis in people who have an appendix is 1%. And the risk in people who had an appendix removed is 0%. Does this justify proactively removing the appendix? No, because the consequences of complications are much higher than the harm you're preventing. The same applies here: detection, even if 100% accurate, doesn't mean anything. You need to show that what you do with the result actually helps.
With my change: 95% of people who are shown scans have cancer and are treated earlier. 5% of people do not have cancer and get CT scans. 0.5% of people get useless biopsies Without my change: many of those 95% die, the 0.5% do not get useless biopsies
And the beauty of this is you can pick the percentage!
> If you have an growing mass in your body, then after a year, it may very well no longer make a difference whether you treat it or not. Or it may be that you would have lived another 20 years just fine
This is just wrong for many parts of the body. In your brain? Your lungs? Growing for a year between 3 scans 6 months apart? Extremely unlikely to be benign
> The same applies here: detection, even if 100% accurate, doesn't mean anything. You need to show that what you do with the result actually helps.
This is wrong. If you had a 100% accurate cancer detector, fewer people would die of cancer with no downside
You assume that treating cancer automatically improves the outcome. Treating cancer often kills you, so treating a non-fatal tumor can easily be a bad decision. And a lot of the tumors found by agressive scans are like that, but we don't know yet how much exactly and how to tell one from the other. It's a new question that requires decades-long observations to answer.
> This is wrong. If you had a 100% accurate cancer detector, fewer people would die of cancer with no downside
You're saying it as if detection somehow cures cancer, it doesn't.
No, I didn't say the detector would cause cancer to be cured. I said fewer people would die with no downsides. If treatment is sometimes harmful then the detector also fixes that, you'd never treat people without cancer
Isn't that then just a problem with the scan and diagnosis? With more frequent scans it seems highly unlikely that we wouldn't improve this process and end up in a better place.
and this is obviously false, especially for cancers detected earlier
So no, most cancer treatments aren't net harmful now, but they likely will be in a world where your programme is implemented. Even something as "simple" as biopsy has mortality rates far from zero. Applying it at scale may not have the effect you expect. And surgeries and chemo are much worse.
And in reality it's not actually close like this. Early treatment is so overwhelmingly better than it completely dwarfs all considerations of biopsy risk.
Late stage lung cancer has less than half the 5 survival of early stage, and around 50% of lung cancer detection is late stage. That's around 30000 lives you could save every year from just lung cancer.
Let's say you don't protocol for all adults. Typically post CT or PET at most 10% get a biopsy. So let's say we increase the false positives that lead to CT or PET by X% of adults. That's 270M * X additional biopsies. Lung biopsy mortality is under 2%.
So the worst case you need a false positive rate under 5% for this to he net beneficial for lung cancer. That's low but with 3 scans 6 months apart and a good radiologist, it's not unreasonable
I believe I've assumed the worst case for all the quantities. In reality the addition screened people would have much lower CT detection rate than the background population, and biopsy mortality has been decreasing. Plus you can do this for only people above 40 where the benefits are higher
Even for something as studied as colon cancer it's still controversial whether mass colonoscopies are better than occult blood tests. US sticks to the former, Europe to latter. US have higher rates of polyp removal, higher rates of cancer detection, higher rates of surgeries and ... higher mortality rates than EU. Why this happens is being studied today, there are some early results. What is absolutely clear though is that higher detection rates don't automatically lead to better outcomes, it can easily be the opposite.
Or take something as simple as sunscreen. It's well-known that sun exposure for light-skinned people can cause cancer and sunscreen is advised. A few multi-decade studies have shown that while it indeed eradicates the skin cancer it also shortens the life expectancy by a few years.
Primum non nocere, doctors and scientists are unsure whether sunscreen should be applied at scale and you effectively call for mass biopsies and surgeries.
Why? What happens if the cancer still doesn't respond to treatment even when detected early? Or, to the contrary, if the cancer also responds to treatment when it starts becoming symptomatic?
That's why we have studies to understand if screening is a good practice or not. It's not that clear cut.