The ongoing screening debate made the front page of yesterday's New York Times. Prompted by a recent study in the Journal of Medicine, ACS has issued a statement on the efficacy of breast and prostate screening - information that some of us already knew -
I was aware of the I rating for PSA's for prostate cancer; the same rating that spiral CT's for lung cancer has; one major difference between ct and psa is cost; another major difference is exposure to radiation - important considerations - to me, all that says is we must work harder to find and get approved a blood test for lung cancer screening.
Today's NY Times article says the debate is complicated - the same argument I get when LCCH presents a nunanced message regarding risk factors for lung cancer. What we've heard from officials is that the public is not capable of understanding a nuanced message. Keep it simple, we are told.
We disagree. If we can develop a constructive, ongoing effort to reframe health messages then the public can be trained to understand what is being said. It must be a continuous effort. I believe it's an injustice to "talk down to people".
The public can understand if it is explained.
The time is now to begin the dialogue of explaining screening and early detection of cancer. The time is now to get an approved method of screening for lung cancer.