Are we over-investigating our patients?

Abstract

There has always been controversy about the value of several new (and expensive) methods of investigating disease, particularly cancer. The argument which has been accepted by most physicians has always been that the earlier diagnosis is made, the better the prognosis. We feel much happier when we can remove an obvious cancerous mass, and have relied on the concept of ‘disease-free interval’ as the benchmark of success. If advanced diagnostic techniques had no other drawback apart from cost to the community, this argument seemed reasonable enough. However, voices against such a blanket approach have become more strident in recent years.