Medical radiation screening – too lucrative to manage sensibly?
Screen test FT By Dr. Margaret McCartney November 9 2009 News from the US, I can scarcely believe it: The New York Times reports that the American Cancer Society now accepts that screening for breast and prostate cancer is not only inefficient, but frequently inaccurate and alarmist.
It has realised that such programmes – designed to detect cancer early – can do damage too, because they often detect cancers or pseudocancers that were never going to maim or kill.That is the bit I can believe. After all, these are evidence-based observations, and none is particularly new. A recent paper in the Journal of the American Medical Association (Jama) also highlighted the weaknesses of screening. What I have difficulty with is that paper’s conclusion: “To reduce morbidity and mortality from prostate cancer and breast cancer, new approaches for screening, early detection, and prevention for both diseases should be considered.” The problem with screening and even early detection is that because these two elements sound useful, we have great difficulty in believing it when the evidence tells us they are not…………….
screening comes at significant cost, including overdiagnosis and overtreatment. The complications of therapy are likely to get worse as the population ages. Not only that, but treatments for relatively indolent disease may in themselves do harm. Is screening for these disorders so ineffective, relative to its complications, that we should rethink it entirely? Not only has the rate of diagnosed aggressive breast cancers failed to decline, but ductal carcinoma in situ now accounts for up to 30 per cent of breast cancer diagnoses at screening. Before widespread screening, this potential pre-cancer was rarely diagnosed. Now it is treated as though it were cancer, but the actual progress of this lesion is far from certain and it does not always do harm.
Why isn’t there more openness about the problems of screening? Is it because we have created a screening industry, both in and outside the NHS?
FT.com / weekend columnists / Margaret McCartney – Screen test
No comments yet.
-
Archives
- December 2025 (293)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
- January 2025 (250)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS


Leave a comment