> At a pragmatic level, can't you say, hey here's something thats probably nothing, let's scan it again in 6 months
If a doctor even _hints_ there might be cancer, the patient will have a terrible 6 months (with actual, measurable negative health impacts of the added stress). Also, at some uncertainy-level (say, 10% chance of cancer) the doctor _has_ to say something and has to schedule expensive followups to not risk liability, even though in 90% of the cases it is not only unnecessary, but actively harmful to the patients.
When, on average, the cost of the screening + the harm done by a false positive outweighs the benefits of an early detection, you shouldn't do the screening in the first place.
If a doctor even _hints_ there might be cancer, the patient will have a terrible 6 months (with actual, measurable negative health impacts of the added stress). Also, at some uncertainy-level (say, 10% chance of cancer) the doctor _has_ to say something and has to schedule expensive followups to not risk liability, even though in 90% of the cases it is not only unnecessary, but actively harmful to the patients.
When, on average, the cost of the screening + the harm done by a false positive outweighs the benefits of an early detection, you shouldn't do the screening in the first place.