karlzachar.com

Last week Dr. Otis Brawley, Chief Medical Officer of the American Cancer Society (ACS), said that the benefits of cancer screens, especially breast and prostate, have been overstated.  His message is complex.  However, the gist of Dr. Brawley’s message goes something like this:  According to the ACS, PSA tests and mammograms can be a bad thing for two reasons:  1) PSA tests and mammograms are not very good screens for prostate and breast cancer, respectively.  (Note, however, they are the only screens commercially available today.)   2) Wide spread cancer screening leads to overdiagnosis and overtreatment of patients who would be better off “watchful waiting” and not doing anything with their “benign” cancer.In the case of breast cancer, for every 100 women told they have breast cancer, 30 have cancers that are slow growing and unlikely to be life threatening.  Thus, treating these patients would actually increase their risk rather than lower it. Similarly, 70 out of 100 men diagnosed with prostate cancer would be better off not undergoing treatment.I have two problems with Dr. Brawley’s message.  1) As a quantitative person, I believe that more knowledge/data is better than less.  I do not subscribe to the “I am better off not knowing” philosophy.  If I were the patient, I’d like to have as much information as possible about my illness.  Thus, the idea that “screening is bad” is (in my book) offensive.  I say this even if we safely assume that today’s screens are not ideal and will (hopefully get better) in the future.  2) Dr. Brawley’s timing is suspect.  This smells like the beginning of Obamacare were services and screens will be rationed.  I could scarily see insurance companies reading Dr. Brawley’s remarks and concluding that they will no longer pay for PSA tests and mammograms going forward.    That would be a disaster for the US healthcare system and a huge step backwards.