A report in the June 7 issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (see article in Medical News Today):
Screening for cancer can find tumors that might not otherwise have been diagnosed in a person's lifetime, a situation called overdiagnosis. Overdiagnosis wastes health care resources. Tests and treatment resulting from overdiagnosis can lead to substantial toxicity and even premature death in patients.
I find this interesting, unsurprising and largely irrelevant. First, I have to note that I was struck with the use of the term "overdiagnosis", which I would expect to be a term used to describe an exhausted physician. I'm certain the authors intended to mean something akin to "false positives".
It is unsurprising in that I expect clinical practice to occasionally result in instances where there appears to be a problem that, under further evaluation, turns out not to be a problem. The alternative is to miss the problems, resulting in pain and/or death.
It is largely irrelevant because, in lieu of technology or clinical practice that is perfectly accurate and precise by never missing pathology and never mistaking normal tissue from abnormal, we must err on the side of false positives -- excuse me, overdiagnosis. Do we want to minimize the wasted use of our precious healthcare dollars? Are these non-trivial differences between accurate and inaccurate diagnoses? Who can argue against these questions?
A marketing manager was questioned by a new boss about a promotion to get registrants to a conference, and the boss questioned why the brochures were sent out to so many people. The manager responded, "Tell me who will attend the conference, and I'll only send brochures to them."
How is cancer really any different?
Tags: medtech, cancer, healthcare expenditure
No comments:
Post a Comment