Individual probabilistic assessments on the risk of cancer, primary or secondary, will not be understood by most patients. That is the essence of our arguments in this paper. Greater understanding can be achieved by extensive, intensive, and detailed counseling. But since probability itself is a concept that easily escapes our everyday intuition—consider the famous Monte Hall paradox—then it would also be wise to advise patients and potential patients, to not put undue weight on any probabilistic assessment. Such assessments can be of value to the epidemiologist in the investigation of different potential etiologies describing cancer evolution or to the clinical trialist as a way to maximize design efficiency. But to an ordinary individual we cannot anticipate that these assessments will be correctly interpreted.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
John O’Quigley (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: