[BallyBrain]

I don't see why early detection means early treatment. What if after detected, the illness is monitored instead. If it then gets to a point where the treatment is no longer considered risky for the stage of the illness, then the treatment can proceed.

It would also give the person the opportunity to change lifestyle to perhaps prolong the time that the illness will become a problem, or perhaps halt its progress altogether.

Additionally, the person who is aware of such illness, can keep an eye out for symptoms related to it, that might otherwise be ignored as something else. At which point normal cancer treatment can progress.

[jacquesm]

This is a tricky bit. There is a lot of interplay here between medical professionals and the general public, and not all of that is either rational or ethical. But absent symptoms non-treatment is better than treatment.

Data about unnecessary procedures is relatively plentiful, which is of course sad, whether that's driven by commercial incentives or the need for 'something to be done' is not something that I have any grip on but it certainly is problematic.

[BallyBrain]

Sounds to me like the issues with this early detection is more of a regulation and education problem then. That could be fixed.