06-007 · EVIDENCE A · LOW-RISK READING

Don’t get a whole-body PET-CT or tumor marker panel if you have no symptoms

不要给没有症状的自己做「全身 PET-CT」或「肿瘤标志物套餐」

Source cost

A whole-body PET-CT costs roughly $7000–$10000 per scan and exposes you to ionizing radiation. Tumor marker panels cost a few hundred dollars. The real cost comes later: when an “abnormality” is found — usually a false positive — follow-up tests, biopsies, and surgeries add up both financially and physically.

Source return

Screening completely healthy people most often yields false alarms. In one study, 86% of 1192 symptom-free individuals had at least one “abnormality” on a whole-body CT; 37% were called back for further tests, yet the vast majority of findings turned out to be benign. In large trials of ovarian cancer markers, the screened group actually had a slightly higher death rate. In some studies, 0.2%–3.25% of people underwent unnecessary surgery simply because of false positives.

Evidence grade

A

THE LOW-ROI DETOURSatire, not advice

Move “Don’t get a whole-body PET-CT or tumor marker panel if you have no symptoms” to Future Me's calendar

The excuse

Future Me has a clearer calendar, more patience, and apparently the same responsibilities.

What feels good now

Today I keep a few minutes and avoid interrupting my default routine.

What the source says

The source summarizes the return this way: “Screening completely healthy people most often yields false alarms. In one study, 86% of 1192 symptom-free individuals had at least one “abnormality” on a whole-body CT; 37% were called back for further tests, yet the vast majority of findings turned out to be benign. In large trials of ovarian cancer markers, the screened group actually had a slightly higher death rate. In some studies, 0.2%–3.25% of people underwent unnecessary surgery simply because of false positives.” Evidence grade A. The original states the population, caveats, and sources; this is not a personal forecast.

THE ENGLISH EDITION

Original recommendation and evidence

Source commit a994b6a0c905

7. Don’t get a whole-body PET-CT or tumor marker panel if you have no symptoms

Cost: A whole-body PET-CT costs roughly $7000–$10000 per scan and exposes you to ionizing radiation. Tumor marker panels cost a few hundred dollars. The real cost comes later: when an “abnormality” is found — usually a false positive — follow-up tests, biopsies, and surgeries add up both financially and physically.

In plain terms: Screening completely healthy people most often yields false alarms. In one study, 86% of 1192 symptom-free individuals had at least one “abnormality” on a whole-body CT; 37% were called back for further tests, yet the vast majority of findings turned out to be benign. In large trials of ovarian cancer markers, the screened group actually had a slightly higher death rate. In some studies, 0.2%–3.25% of people underwent unnecessary surgery simply because of false positives.

Benefit: The USPSTF, which evaluates preventive measures in the U.S., assigned a D rating to CA-125 testing and ultrasound screening for ovarian cancer in asymptomatic women — meaning it does not recommend them. This decision was based on the PLCO trial, which showed a 0.34% death rate from ovarian cancer in the screened group versus 0.29% in the usual care group (RR 1.18; 95% CI 0.82–1.71). No real benefit was demonstrated. The proportion of people undergoing needless surgery due to false positives ranged from 0.2%–3.25%, and only up to 15% of those developed serious complications. Another study found that 86% of 1192 symptom-free people showed at least one “abnormality” on whole-body CT; 37% were advised to undergo further tests. Most of these findings were benign. The idea that “early detection saves lives” sounds logical, but the data do not support it here.

Evidence grade: A

Sources: US Preventive Services Task Force (2018). Screening for Ovarian Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA (the same recommendation is also available on the USPSTF official page). <https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.21926>, <https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/recommendation/ovarian-cancer-screening>; Furtado CD et al. (2005). Whole-body CT screening: spectrum of findings and recommendations in 1192 patients. Radiology. <https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2372041741>

Notes: The tumor marker portion of this recommendation is backed by randomized controlled trials. In contrast, the evidence for whole-body CT and PET-CT screening relies mainly on observational follow-ups without proper control groups, so it is rated as B. Other proven screening methods — such as those for colorectal cancer, cervical cancer, breast cancer, and low-dose chest CT for high-risk individuals — are discussed in Section 1. This recommendation does not apply to people already showing symptoms or those already diagnosed with cancer; for them, PET-CT is a diagnostic tool, not a screening measure.

Read the complete Chinese source and notes

7. 不要给没有症状的自己做「全身 PET-CT」或「肿瘤标志物套餐」

成本: 全身 PET-CT 一次约 7000 到 10000 元,还要挨一次电离辐射。肿瘤标志物套餐几百元。真正的成本在后面:查出来一处「异常」,其实是虚惊一场(这叫假阳性),接下来的复查、取组织化验、开刀,钱和罪都在这一段。

说人话: 没症状的人去查,查出来最多的是虚惊一场。做全身 CT 的人八成多至少查出一处「异常」,将近四成被叫回去复查,可大多数是良性的。女性查卵巢癌标志物,死于卵巢癌的反而略多一点,还有人因为虚惊一场白做了一次手术。

收益: 美国那个给预防措施打分的机构 USPSTF,对没有症状的女性用 CA-125 和超声筛查卵巢癌给了 D 级,意思是建议不做。依据是 PLCO 试验。因卵巢癌死亡的比例,筛查组 0.34%、常规组 0.29%。RR 1.18(95% CI 0.82–1.71)。查了没有好处。因为查错了(假阳性)而白挨一刀的比例,各试验里是 0.2%–3.25%,这些人里最多 15% 出现严重的手术并发症。另一项研究给 1,192 名没有症状的人做全身 CT 筛查。其中 86% 至少查出一处「异常」,37% 被建议进一步检查。原文说「大多数发现按描述是良性的」。它看起来划算,是因为「一次查全身、早发现早治疗」太符合直觉

证据等级: A

来源: US Preventive Services Task Force (2018). Screening for Ovarian Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA(同一份建议另有 USPSTF 官方页). <https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.21926>、<https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/recommendation/ovarian-cancer-screening>;Furtado CD et al. (2005). Whole-body CT screening: spectrum of findings and recommendations in 1192 patients. Radiology. <https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2372041741>

备注: 肿瘤标志物那部分有随机对照试验撑着。全身 CT 和 PET-CT 那部分只有「看做过的人后来怎么样」这类跟踪记录,没有分组对照,证据要弱一档,相当于 B 级。真正有证据的那几项筛查,像结直肠癌、宫颈癌、乳腺癌、高危的人做低剂量胸部 CT,是另一回事,见第 1 节。已经有症状的人,或者已经确诊癌症的人做 PET-CT,那是看病不是筛查,另当别论

Author's scope notes: 肿瘤标志物那部分有随机对照试验撑着。全身 CT 和 PET-CT 那部分只有「看做过的人后来怎么样」这类跟踪记录,没有分组对照,证据要弱一档,相当于 B 级。真正有证据的那几项筛查,像结直肠癌、宫颈癌、乳腺癌、高危的人做低剂量胸部 CT,是另一回事,见第 1 节。已经有症状的人,或者已经确诊癌症的人做 PET-CT,那是看病不是筛查,另当别论

YOUR PRIVATE LIST

Choose what to do with this idea

Related source entries

Original content by eternity4719 under CC BY 4.0. English translation is credited in the source notes. HowToLiveWorse adds a clearly labeled satirical response.

Full source and adaptation notes