I.e., such capabilities are bad for "business"? Or is it that this kind of sensitivity in a test will lead to over-treatment?
First of all the medical establishment will not believe in it. They think they have the most sensitive testing equipment, so they have a hard time believing that such as low tech method could outdo their expensive machinery and other tests. So when their tests cannot confirm the presence of a tumor because it is too small, but a low tech urine test can pick it up they think it is bogus.
The second part of the problem is that it is bad for business. Think about it, what is more profitable? A lumpectomy or a radical mastectomy with chemotherapy? It is simple economics. A small, early detected tumor is not going to generate the revenue of larger advanced cancer, especially if it has metastasized. I know that statement is going to open a can of worms, but it is true.
And before someone tries to argue breast exams and mammography for early detection, this is very misleading as well. How much money is generated by biopsing suspicious lumps? These kind of biopsies are not necessary in the majority of cases. Breast cancer tends to be one of the slowest growing cancers in the body. The reason is the low blood supply in the area to allow angiogenesis to increase the growth rate as with most other cancers. For this reason breast cancer can take up to 10 years to grow to a detectable size. Therefore, suspicious lumps should be monitored closely for growth rather than immediately biopsied as most lumps are benign fibroids, cysts or calcifications.
Furthermore, why are they even doing biopsies, which spread cancer cells rather than non-invasive tests that do not spread the cancer cells, such as thermography? Granted it is more expensive, but again this is more incentive to wait and watch the lump. Or come up with less expensive smaller versions. Do people realize that we are being outdone by the ancient Greeks in this matter. Yep, the ancient Greeks would apply wet mud to peoples bodies and look for areas where the mud dried faster than normal as a means to detect cancer. Cancer cells have a higher metabolism, which generates more heat, and they cannot expel heat as easily, which is why radiofrequency has been used to cook tumors since the 60s, but not in the US.
Finally, back about 30 years ago I saw a new mammogram that produced an image that was so sharp that it put today's imagery to shame. I was told that there was no radiation involved, but rather they used an electrostatic discharge through the breast that would hit a plate on the other side. A paper was attached to the plate, not sure if before or after, then treated with a very fine blue powder like the graphite used to dust for fingerprints. The charged areas would attract the powder forming a perfect image of the breast and all of its structures. It was nothing like a conventional mammogram, which can be blurry and hard to read. This was like someone drawing a clear and crisp picture for a medical text. You could make out all the ducts, glands, etc. You would be able to spot a tumor even a millimeter in size. That was the last one and only time I ever saw that technology. I have always felt that it was suppressed for the same reason. Small tumors are not profitable enough.