The presence or absence of lung cancer if a radiologist and for further info.

The presence or absence of lung cancer if a radiologist decides that a scan is positive, it means that the individual in question may have lung cancer the scan is negative, then the person probably not cancer.

The result is called true-positive when the suspicion of cancer is confirmed by examining. Example, a piece of microscopic injury Turns out to be a false alarm the scan was false-positive. The result is true-negative when in reality there is no cancer. False-negative means that the scan be labeled as normal wrongly Such inevitable erroneous reviews of scans to far-reaching consequences they can make an initially limited benefit of screening is deflected to an absent or even negative effect. Some Examples may clarify this. A true-positive scan is useful when the individual in question can be treated thus better. It is a highly malignant form of cancer that always fatal ending, then early diagnosis is rather bad because they make the unsuspecting smoker earlier and therefore unhappy. A true-negative scan is not necessarily beneficial in the long term. If the person can feel more secure and therefore decided to continue to smoke, then one has done him a disservice. The problem of false-positive scan was more that they not only causes anxiety and stress, but also leads to additional tests. These can sometimes even a (useless) lung surgery. False positive tests are very common in the NLST study mentioned earlier (2) at a quarter of the subjects.

A false-negative study may lead to a false sense of security. If the patient still has symptoms, he may be less inclined to consult a doctor. In addition to these limitations, which are inherent to the scan itself, there are other elements that make lung cancer screening is not necessarily advantageous. Per 2500 screened people 1 cancer would be caused as a result of the radiation that is used to make (3) the scan. The cost is also not looked well. What expenses all those scans and additional examinations, and which stands opposite? Finally, many experts have expressed concern that smokers would quit smoking. Less inclined after all screening
gives a false sense of security.

Conclusion

It is not clear whether the early detection of lung cancer is helpful. Screening can prevent some deaths from lung cancer, but it is not certain whether this benefit outweighs the disadvantages. There is the high number of false-positive results and reduced commitment to quit smoking. Important to know is that lung screening does not change the many other types of cancers that can be caused by smoking (bladder cancer, colon cancer, esophageal cancer,).

Smoking also plays a role in heart disease. The negative impact on the cardiovascular system, expressed in numbers, is even greater than the effect of smoking on the lungs. Lung Screening of course has no hold on. Prevention is better than cure. Quitting smoking remains the best option, or, better yet, never starts it.