if scans can early detect cancer why r we not doing them often enough?

Question

i mean e.g. ultrasound and MRI scans that r harmless, and can detect cancer early before it is too late to cure it (some cancer types develop within 3 months rather then 3 years e.g. thyroid anaplastic cancer, etc . why r we not doing them say each 2-3 months to be on safe side? is it due to costs or pure stupidity? better be safe then sorry no?

Answer 1

It's a bit too soon to say that MRI scanning is "harmless." Better to say that harm has not yet been proven, as an MRI is a relatively novel test. An MRI of the head takes about 45 min in the machine. An MRI of the entire body would take several hours per person. 300 million people x 3 hours each = 900,000,000 hours. That's 1.3 million months for one pan-scan of the entire US. Not counting the time it takes to look at all those pictures. Even spread among multiple MRI machines, that's nuts. Every 2 or 3 months as you suggest.....would be inane. Also, what if you find a thyroid nodule or an adrenal nodule or a liver cyst? All three of these are VERY common, and mostly benign. Are you going to sign all of those people up for biopsies now? Those aren't without risk.

I'm glad you left CT scans out of this, as they do have ionizing radiation and have the potential to cause cancer if you did them enough.

An ultrasound isn't a great tool for picking up small asymptomatic cancers. You don't get a great look at the pancreas, you can't see through bone to the brain, you can't see through air to look at the lung or the colon.

Also, many cancers don't have much better death rates even when diagnosed earlier. It seems like survival time is longer, but it just seems that way because you picked it up earlier. It's called lead-time bias. Diagnosing anaplastic thyroid cancer is a pretty dismal diagnosis no matter what stage you pick it up in. Same with pancreatic cancer.

Answer 2

Aside from the impracticality of scanning everyone, the actions that scanning would prompt are not entirely harmless. For example, if a scan finds a bump on your kidney that finding will prompt another test (biopsy), which is more invasive, more expensive, and more risky.

False positives, false negatives and unnecessary medical interventions are why we do not do head to toe imaging for cancer screening.

Answer 3

They are very expensive and time consuming so it would not make sense to run tests on everyone. Who would pay for the testing? Who would read the millions of tests done every month? Who would pay for the buildings to hold all those machines? Who would pay for the time off from work and school that the tests take every month? What about false positive results from errors in testing - what about the grief of being told you have cancer when you do not?

Answer 4

An MRI machine costs around £10 million + ($20,000,000) not every hospital can afford this. Not too mention cost of people to man those machines and radiologists to analyse the images.

If you are looking for mass results your best bet is to look at PET scanning

Answer 5

The thyroid gland is situated at the front of the throat, below the Adam’s apple. It comprises two lobes that lie on either side of the windpipe, joined in front by an isthmus. The thyroid gland secretes hormones to regulate many metabolic processes, including growth and energy expenditure. Hypothyroidism means the thyroid gland is underactive and fails to secrete enough hormones into the bloodstream. This causes the person’s metabolism to slow down.

Answer 6

there are numerous factors to concider before implementing any screening programme.

cost, effectiveness, quality of diagnosis, false positives, false negetives, and importantly - is there a suitable treatment to follow the diagnosis, which is effective. (these are just a few!)

this is the reason that in the uk we have screening programmes for cervical cancer & breast cancer, and not for bowel and lung cancer. (these are the most prevelent cancers, which can be diagnosed and treated effectivly)

Answer 7

and who would pay for this ?
sure its better to be safe then sorry but cost also is an issue...is it fair for society to pick up the tab for this every few months for someone who is not insured or has coverage but their coverage doesn't allow this that often...yeah it's sad to think this way but thats how it goes..purely cost issues

there aren't enough trained doctors to read these and not enough facilities to do them..again who would pay for all the machines,the upkeep of them,supplies etc

Answer 8

People are sometimes afraid of what they may find out. Its partially laziness! Always get screened! Its better to find out before because it could seriously complicate later, and, it may be to late!

Answer 9

they are expensive and the radiation that they subject yr body to can actually cause more problems than it solves.

Answer 10

Our government wants spend money for nothing in the mountains and the desert. Why do we vote for people who spend money on killing people rather than spending money on allowing people to live?