That can also be reframed as 1.71% of asymptomatic people having cancer, which is a really good argument for better screening.
That can also be reframed as 1.71% of asymptomatic people having cancer, which is a really good argument for better screening.
* The cancer is aggressive and resistant to treatment. Chemo/radiation only pause the growth for a bit, but ultimately the cancer keeps growing and the total survival time is the same (only that the patient spent more time knowing they had cancer).
* The cancer is susceptible enough to treatment that it's still curable when it becomes symptomatic and found through other means.
* The cancer is slow enough that the patient dies from other causes before.
Early screening brings benefits only when the cancer ends up causing issues and responds differently to treatment between the "early screening detection" time and the "normal detection" time.
It's impossible to know beforehand which of the scenarios have more weight, specially because we have very little data on what happens way before cancer is detected via the usual methods. We need better studies on this, and for now the evidence doesn't really point out to these large, indiscriminate screenings being actually helpful.
Further, the denominator is asymptomatic people who were able to get MRI’s they didn’t need. That doesn’t tell us anything about the normal world.
This is false. A simple google search for spontaneous remission (or honestly anything similar) would show/have shown you this.
Even assuming your statement is true, if what is detected is small enough for that there's no reason "treatment" can't just be monitoring it's size with follow-up scans.
It is true. You need only trouble yourself to search. Here's a recent paper, for example: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/articl...
> if what is detected is small enough for that there's no reason "treatment" can't just be monitoring it's size with follow-up scans.
This is false—it is exactly what the article is trying to convey. There is a risk to any test, and one of the major risks for imaging is getting treatment for things that would never cause symptoms or require intervention.