[somenameforme]

The paper [1] is more well written and clear than the CNN article. They were comparing the aggregate life expectancies of people who went through regular screenings vs those who did not, and there was near zero difference except for colorectal screenings where the difference was about 4 months of difference.

The paper is indeed presenting strong evidence that regular screenings have minimal value.

[1] - https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar...

[throwaway02sfv]

I can confirm these findings. My father, aged 63, passed away just 3 days ago because of blood cancer. He was totally fit and fine until 8 months ago when we first noticed his abnormal blood counts.

He did regular screening, nothing came up in it. When suddenly in one blood report, his counts were low that's when we did some extensive testing. Even with extensive testing, the diagnosis kept changing. From Myelofibrosis to MDS to AML to AEL.

Whole aspects around testing and related studies are very confusing. Tests are not at all accurate and testing is very expensive.

It seems like a scam when it comes to testing industry and pharma industry for such disorders. Bottomline is nothing helped in my father's case and we lost him after spending tons of money.

The fact that medical system remains such an inefficient system till date indicates to me that world leaders doesn't want to solve for health problems. It's an industry for them with lots of money. Everyone seems to be motivated to keep population seek and be subscribed to their drugs.

Sorry for the rant.

[francisofascii]

> except for colorectal screenings where the difference was about 4 months of difference

That sounds, uh, significant. So to clarify, does that mean people gain 4 months on average by getting this screening? Those who get the cancer gain years, and those that don't gain 0, so the average is 4 months?

[HWR_14]

That is how I read it.

It also makes me wonder that if some cancers are rare enough to average to 0 months (rounded down) that could still work out to a 1/500 chance of living to 80 vs 40. Long odds it matters, but big difference if it does.

[somenameforme]

They were testing for some of the most frequent cancers (breast, colorectal, lung cancer (in smokers), prostate), and measuring differences in outcomes down to the day.

[slingnow]

Think of what you're saying. If it was so bimodal that the screened people "gained years" while the ones who didn't "gained 0", then how could the average possibly be 4 months?

If we take your theory at face value, on average the screened people would have an 8 month increase.

[francisofascii]

A very simplistic hypothetical scenario could be, people who get colon cancer die an average of 6-7 years earlier than they would have. And if 5% of the population get colon cancer, then the average gain would be 4 months with screening.

[hn_throwaway_99]

Thanks for posting that. I read the article but not the paper, but I still feel like this may be a case where scientists "treat all time equally" in a way that most people do not, resulting in differing conclusions even though the data is the same.

That is, putting aside monetary costs for the moment (which I know is not a good idea in reality, but want to focus on another issue), you often hear about how false positives cause "added anxiety and unnecessary treatments, which can cause harm", but if a breast cancer screening saves, say, lets one woman live until 80 instead of dying at 40, how many other people's "added anxiety" would it take to say "OK, that test was worth it". I think a lot of folks would go think that saving that life should be valued a lot more than just, say, comparing 40 years for her vs. time/anxiety "wasted" for false positives.

[vc8f6vVV]

X-ray is not just adding anxiety, it's harmful, and it's affecting all women who get screening, not only those who actually get cancer. Magic of numbers.