Re:Why Early Detection Is the Best Way to Beat Cancer
by danielweber on Friday November 16, 2012 @01:37PM
(#4795166)
David was the one who taught me about the Will Rogers phenomenon. Merely by reclassifying something, you can make it look like all categories improve, while overall no improvement happened.
The article submitted here is a popular article by a layman, and popular to a fault in that it discusses trade-offs in different screening methodologies, but doesn't even introduce the reader to important concepts like sensitivity and specificity of medical tests.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitivity_and_specificity
It's very important that HN participants digest the article kindly submitted here with a compare-and-contrast reading of "The early detection of cancer and improved survival: More complicated than most people think"
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-early-dete...
by David Gorski, M.D., an experienced cancer researcher and experienced blogger about science-based medical decision-making for popular readers. His conclusion, "The bottom line is that the ever-earlier detection of many diseases, particularly cancer, is not necessarily an unalloyed good. As the detection threshold moves ever earlier in the course of a disease or abnormality (in the case of cancer, to ever smaller tumors all the way down to the level of clusters of cells), the apparent prevalence of the disease being screened for increases, and abnormalities that may never turn into the disease start to be detected at an increasing frequency. In other words, the signal-to-noise ratio falls precipitously," is a necessary caution in predicting the benefit of early detection of what appears to be cancer.
The American Cancer Society has a good 2012 publication, "Cancer Treatment & Survivorship: Facts & Figures 2012-2013"
http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@epidemiologysurvei...
that provides more details on what it means to survive a case of cancer.