The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
in the prostate prostate is very very poorly fused and as a result it doesn't get a lot of glucose coming to it and so that is actually almost entirely useless with FDG and looking at the prostate diffusion-weighted image of the prostate coupled with the more advanced molecular tests the 4/k as an example of a blood test when my mind have totally revolutionized the way we think about prostate cancer
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
Whole-body MRI screening in healthy adults produces more incidentaloma harm than cancer-mortality benefit.
Starting colonoscopy screening at 45 (vs 50) prevents enough early-onset cancers to justify the population cost.
Multi-cancer liquid-biopsy tests like Galleri detect early cancers at a stage that meaningfully improves survival.