Test Dilemma

This week a new recommendation came out that people at high risk for lung cancer - particularly current or previous heavy smokers - should be screened for lung cancer with CT scans. This is another way that cancer can be detected at an earlier more treatable stage.

'Great,' we say. On the surface this seems like a good idea - catch a cancer early on and save more lives. Advanced testing options which have become relatively more accessible and affordable over the years have opened up testing options for millions.

But, and there is a big fat BUT here, does the additional screening add false positives which equal expense and stress for the patient? This is the same argument for women who have had breast cancer that they all should have MRIs in addition to mammograms each year to screen for recurrence.

All this wonderful new testing does great things. They find things that are something 'bad' and catch it early. They also find things that are big enough to see but too small to do anything about. And where does that leave the patient?

Medical advances are great but sometimes the advances exceed the capabilities that are required to diagnose and treat the findings.

This does not even touch on the issue of over testing and the emotional toll. Whether a positive or negative result, the testing experience is an emotional roller coaster ride for the patients. False positives and false negatives are realities in the results. Non test is 100% fallible so these do take place.

Me, personally, I am a big fan of the lets waiting and watching at this point. Unless I have symptoms I am not bounding off to see the doctor. I don't want more tests. I am happy this way.