One of the problems with some of these tools is the methodology. Predict is based on a longitudinal study in the UK. The sample size is, well, not that convincing and from a scientific perspective the lack of double blind trials due to ethics makes some of the data not as reliable as you may find in other fields. This is not ideal. I've discussed this with several oncologists who have all seemed a little uncomfortable with those questions. The generic response is 'It's the best information we have" which appears to be true.
Some of the percentages are depressingly small, particularly when assessing the usefulness of chemo. Recent developments that give a better idea about that, such as oncotyping, don't feature in most tools at all. I imagine it will take some time for those things to make their way into the calculators as they are not commonly used as a diagnostic due to the cost.
There also seems to be very little data about mortality or severe debilitation that can be attributed directly to treatment and that information is separate from the tools. I find that frustrating. It's possible, of course, that lay people have different access to the professionals.
The bottom line is that the treatment we are offered in Australia appears to be responsible for our outstanding survival rates. We all need to use what ever resources are available when making decisions about what we can or are willing to do--personal beliefs and our previous exposure to cancer obviously influence those choices. It really is a shit of a disease.
