dale.j. wrote:
> In article <
[email protected]>,
> Leonard Evens <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Again it depends. If there is no known effective
>>treatment, knowing about it early rather than late may not
>>be helpful.
>>
>>For prostate cancer I think it is generally helpful. You
>>don't necessarily have to treat prostate cancer just
>>because you know you have
>>it. It depends on the details of the diagnosis, the age
>> of the patient and some other factors.
>
>
>
> What cancer do we not have an effective treatment for if
> found early enough? I'm curious because I thought that if
> cancer were found early the treatments would be effective
> and I was also under the impression there are treatments
> for all types of cancer.
There are certain cancers which have very low survival
rates. Dr. Fink mentioned some brain tumors, and he would
know more about that than I
do. If you want to scare yourself you can go to the
American Cancer Society web site and find other
examples.
>
> Perhaps we are still not finding the cancer early enough.
> Example, if we somehow could find that first abnormal cell
> and eliminate it wouldent that be a cure? Most likely not
> practical, but just a thought of mine.
A problem with early detection is that you may detect
cancers which will never amount to anything. So you may end
up treating perfectly healthy people needlessly and in some
cases there will be undesirable side effects. This is a
subject of intense study and some debate in the medical
research community, and I don't believe there are going to
be easy answers. Ideally, if you could actually find those
abnormal cells long before they can do damage, you could be
relatively certain they would not be harmless, and you could
excise them with little risk of side effects, it would be
worth doing. But in practice that is hard to do.
Take prostate cancer as an example. It is known from autopsy
studies that a large number of men who die of other causes
show microscopic evidence of prostate cancer. The estimates
vary by age and they also vary quite a bit in different
autopsy studies. But it seems to be at least 50 percent in
men over 80, and perhaps a lot higher. It would be lower in
younger men but still fairly high. Remember that only about
16 percent of men in the US are likely to be diagnosed with
clinical cases of prostate cancer during their lifetimes. So
there is a difference between the microscopic kinds of
cancers found on autopsy and those actually diagnosed
through current techniques. If you do PSA testing, you will
catch some cases that don't need treatment (and you will
miss some that do, but that is another story). No one really
knows how many, but again it varies by age. Few experts
would recommend testing and aggressive treatment in men over
80, but most urologists, at least, generally feel there is
no question that men under 70 should be tested and treated
if necessary. For men 70-80, it depends on a variety of
factors, including life expectancy. The available diagnostic
tools, like PSA and Gleason scores are helpful, but they are
not entirely reliable. Current research using modern
techniques such as DNA analysis are beginning to find
markers which can distinguish the cases needing treatment
from those that don't, but they aren't yet available for
general use. I suspect that in a few years, physicians will
be able through appropriate testing to distinguish those
cases which do need aggressive treatment from those that
don't, and at that point the debate will become moot. But we
are not there yet.
Biostatisticians talk about risk-benefit analysis. That is
the benefit of treatment has to be balanced against the
risks of treatment. But as I keep pointing out that
analysis really has to be done separately for each
patient, and that will depend on the specifics of the
case. But what we have to help make the decision is
statistics, much of it of questionable validity, about
large populations. It is hard to translate those
statistics to odds as they apply in individual cases. I've
taught a lot of premeds in my day and I know quite a few
physicians. Few of them really have the background in
advanced statistics to be able to make decisions of this
kind based on formal theory. That is probably a good thing
because it is unlikely that going by the numbers would
actually take into account all the relevant facts. So
doing it on the basis of experience and feeling about a
given patient is probably a better way to go.
>
> Dale J.