> But one set of figures cited is that "out of 2,000 women screened in ten
> years ... "
>
> Now I don't understand what's meant by 2,000 in ten years. Far, far more
> than that are screen. Is the researcher picking out 2,000 for the sake of
> his one life saved? Has anyone read the actual research report?
It said "for every 2000" etc., i.e. that every ten years 0.05% of the
women being screened would have a cancer successfully treated. There
is no doubt that the screening program is double edged and that it is
right to consider the balance of harm versus benefit.
Here is a link to a more detailed summary of the original paper.
www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab001877.html
Part of the problem is the concept of lives 'saved', as if we were
immortal. The article referred (correctly in my view) to lives
'prolonged'. One can only make any reasonable judgement on these issues
by considering how much extra quality life is being granted to the
beneficiaries, and weighing that against how much loss of quality is
suffered by those harmed, and for how long. Quality of life is of
course a subjective matter, but a consensus view can be found.
It is certainly not obvious that 10 unnecessary lumpectomies are worse
than one person dying of cancer, (obviously the individuals involved
will have differing views) but it is something we should be consider.
I don't think the research under discussion really says much more than
that, although some of the pundits have made unhelpful comments. The
comment that the researchers had previously concluded that screening did
not significantly reduce mortality is misleading. If a woman lives 20
years longer as a result of therapy, but then dies of cancer anyway,
then the therapy has not reduced *mortality* one iota, but has provided
the benefit of an extra 20 years of life to someone. What it says if
anything is that people who get breast cancer often die of breast
cancer, but not necessarily at the same time.
Tim
Mary Fisher - 19 Oct 2006 12:13 GMT
> Here is a link to a more detailed summary of the original paper.
> www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab001877.html
Thanks, I'll read it later.
> Part of the problem is the concept of lives 'saved', as if we were
> immortal.
Indeed - we hear it far too often - in every sphere of life.
> The article referred (correctly in my view) to lives 'prolonged'.
But the reports I heard (journalistic interpretations) said 'saved'.
> One can only make any reasonable judgement on these issues by considering
> how much extra quality life is being granted to the beneficiaries, and
> weighing that against how much loss of quality is suffered by those
> harmed, and for how long. Quality of life is of course a subjective
> matter, but a consensus view can be found.
Hmm. I'm a bit suspicious of the consensus route ...
> It is certainly not obvious that 10 unnecessary lumpectomies are worse
> than one person dying of cancer, (obviously the individuals involved will
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> is that people who get breast cancer often die of breast cancer, but not
> necessarily at the same time.
The chap leading (or part of) the research talked about women dying from
other causes than bc, if they weren't treated, as part of the figures.
It's really far too complicated to have brief snatches of discussion or
edited headlines.
Thanks, Tim,
Mary
> Tim