Skip to main content

The Over Diagnosis of Disease: How Medical Technology Can Endanger Your Health


Do you feel well?  If so, DO worry.  Emerging medical technology will soon fix that problem and cure you of your sense of well being.  Medical technology is advancing our ability to find more and more diseases.   Even if you feel well, advancing medical technology will soon find a disease with your name on it.  

It turns out that in a lot of people who think they are well, we can find pathological evidence of some disease process if we look hard enough.  And technology is improving our ability to look.  If you feel good, maybe we should just look harder and try to find something wrong.

This vision of medicine is not far fetched.  As a fascinating editorial in the Archives of Internal Medicine notes, this era is already upon us.  Authors Jerome Hoffman and Richelle Cooper write about how overdiagnosis of disease is becoming a modern epidemic.  It is created by medical technology and forced on an unsuspecting public that may not realized that more diagnosis can sometimes endanger their health.

The editorial notes another article in the Archives that described how better imaging technology is advancing our ability to diagnose pulmonary embolisms.  Pulmonary embolisms are blood clots that form in the lungs.  Previous technology tended to identify big embolisms that we knew to be life threatening.  But newer CT technology is identifying smaller embolisms.  But patients with small embolisms are treated with blood thinners in the same manner as patients with big embolisms.  It is not clear whether treating smaller and smaller embolisms will reduce mortality. 

We have previously discussed on GeriPal how this same issue may lead to overdiagnosis of Alzheimers disease.  Improving imaging and biomarker technologies can identify the pathologic changes of Alzheimers Disease decades before a person has any symptoms of dementia.  This can be good if treatments can prevent dementia. There is a big problem though.  Many of the persons with these pathologic changes will never have symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease.  They have pathology that is meaningless to them.  Yet, our new technologies risk subjecting them to treatments with possibly harmful side effects.

The problem is that better methods of diagnosis, such as advanced imaging techniques, is that they identify insignificant "diseases" that would have never been identified by old fashioned diagnostic methods.  The “pathologies” detected meet all standard definitions of diseases.  However, it turns out maybe it was actually good our old diagnostic technologies failed to identify these “diseases.” It turns out that these difficult to diagnose diseases may actually have little impact on the patient.  The patient feels no symptoms, and in many cases, if the diseases are not diagnosed, nothing bad will happen.

This actually turns what we learned about diagnostic testing in medical school on its head.  We learned that a diagnostic test can be either right or wrong.  We learned about these 4 outcomes of diagnostic testing:

  • 1       It can identify disease in someone has the disease (true positive)
  • 2       It can identify disease in someone who does not have disease (false positive)
  • 3       It can find no disease in someone who actually has disease (false negative)
  • 4       It can find no disease in someone who actually has no disease (true negative)
When we learned about these possibilities, the assumption was that the “truthful” outcomes were good, and the “false” outcomes were bad. 

We never considered the possibility that a test can accurately identify disease in a patient with a disease that does not matter.  We never learned about the blessed possibility that a test can fail to identify a disease in a patient who is better off not knowing about their meaningless "disease."

Maybe we need to change our definition of disease.  A disease should really be defined as a pathologic state that will lead to bad health outcomes in a patient.  Abnormal pathology that leads to no ill effects should not be defined as a disease.  Everything we know about diagnostic testing really needs to be reconfigured to account for this patient centered definition of disease. 

 
by: Ken Covinsky

Comments

Anonymous said…
thanks for sharing.
Anonymous said…
Ken, thanks for your superb commentary! I agree with your perspective and think that we doctors should be more cognizant of over-diagnosing. Your comments remind me of something one of my previous mentors (Dr. Alvan Feinstein) would have written or said. -sm
It seems most medical technologies these days overlook the old adage, "too much of a good thing is bad". While procedures have gotten so advanced that they've managed to detect "anomalies" that would've remained invisible twenty years ago, they might actually go as far as attack and neutralize some parts of those "anomalies" that might actually be beneficial to the body.

Popular posts from this blog

The Future of Palliative Care: A Podcast with Diane Meier

There are few names more closely associated with palliative care than Diane Meier.  She is an international leader of palliative care, a MacArthur "genius" awardee, and amongst many other leadership roles, the CEO of the Center to Advance Palliative Care (CAPC).  We were lucky enough to snag Diane for our podcast to talk about everything we always wanted to ask her, including:
What keeps her up at night?Does palliative care need a national strategy and if so why and what would it look like?The history of CAPC and the leadership centersAdvice that she has for graduating fellows who want to continue to move palliative care forward as they start their new careersWhat she imagines palliative care will look like in 10 or 15 years?What is the biggest threat facing palliative care? So take a listen and if you want to dive a little deeper, here are two articles that we discussed during the podcast:
A National Strategy For Palliative Care. Health Affairs 2017Palliative Care Leadership…

Elderhood: Podcast with Louise Aronson

In this week's podcast we talk with Louise Aronson MD, MFA, Professor of Geriatrics at UCSF about her new book Elderhood, available for purchase now for delivery on the release date June 11th.

We are one of the first to interview Louise, as she has interviews scheduled with other lesser media outlets to follow (CBS This Morning and Fresh Air with Terry...somebody).

This book is tremendously rich, covering a history of aging/geriatrics, Louise's own journey as a geriatrician facing burnout, aging and death of family of Louise's members, insightful stories of patients, and more.

We focus therefore on the 3 main things we think our listeners and readers will be interested in.

First - why the word "Elder" and "Elderhood" when JAGS/AGS and others recently decided that the preferred terminology was "older adult"?

Second - Robert Butler coined the term ageism in 1969 - where do we see ageism in contemporary writing/thinking?  We focus on Louise's…

Psychedelics: Podcast with Ira Byock

In this week's podcast, we talk with Dr. Ira Byock, a leading palliative care physician, author, and public advocate for improving care through the end of life.

Ira Byock wrote a provocative and compelling paper in the Journal of Pain and Symptom Management titled, "Taking Psychedelics Seriously."

In this podcast we challenge Ira Byock about the use of psychedelics for patients with serious and life-limiting illness.   Guest host Josh Biddle (UCSF Palliative care fellow) asks, "Should clinicians who prescribe psychedelics try them first to understand what their patient's are going through?" The answer is "yes" -- read or listen on for more!

While you're reading, I'll just go over and lick this toad.

-@AlexSmithMD





You can also find us on Youtube!



Listen to GeriPal Podcasts on:
iTunes Google Play MusicSoundcloudStitcher
Transcript
Eric: Welcome to the GeriPal Podcast. This is Eric Widera.

Alex: This is Alex Smith.

Eric: Alex, I spy someone in our …