The theme of this beat is screening tests -what’s useful and what’s not. Because many tests are done routinely, it’s often counter-intuitive to think of them as having risks or costs that need to be weighed against their potential benefit.
The story on computer-aided detection of breast cancer illustrated some of those risks -false positive test results, false negatives and overdiagnosis -and broke the surprising news that CAD is actually less accurate than reading mammograms the old-fashioned way. Likewise, the report on the American Cancer Society changing its breast cancer screening guidelines to include MRI for women at high risk contained an explanation of why MRI is not recommended for all women: again, false positives and overdiagnosis.
The story on genetic screening for Gaucher disease pointed out yet another potential risk: aborting fetuses who might never have symptoms of disease, even though they carry a genetic mutation.
Meanwhile, the report on a possible new screening test for lung cancer explained why a test based on a validated microarray could be more useful than the spiral CT scans proponents have been pushing (despite the lack of evidence that they prevent lung cancer deaths).