One big problem today is, that professionals have voted to reduce screening because of the side-effects of treatment. Especially on those, non-threatening, low risk cancers, which would (likely) never have posted a risk.
If removing the cancer label on those, and thus remove most of the useless treatment, this would be a net positive for all men. As we could start to role out society-wide screening. And really catch the problematic cases. Like men in their 40s or 50s getting prostate cancer.
Today we have voted (in most western countries) to not screen at all because the cost (in human suffering, not money, although that’s surely also a problem) of over-treatment is higher than the cost for those who die early because their cancer wasn’t found early enough. Which basically means we let people die, because we are not able to manage low risk cancer cases correctly.
Source: I’ve once been the tech part of a prostate cancer patient network startup for seven years. Turns out it’s hard to make it cash positive.
If removing the cancer label on those, and thus remove most of the useless treatment, this would be a net positive for all men. As we could start to role out society-wide screening. And really catch the problematic cases. Like men in their 40s or 50s getting prostate cancer.
Today we have voted (in most western countries) to not screen at all because the cost (in human suffering, not money, although that’s surely also a problem) of over-treatment is higher than the cost for those who die early because their cancer wasn’t found early enough. Which basically means we let people die, because we are not able to manage low risk cancer cases correctly.
Source: I’ve once been the tech part of a prostate cancer patient network startup for seven years. Turns out it’s hard to make it cash positive.