Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As stated in the article most cancers have no screening tests and are only diagnosed via presenting symptoms. Your suggestion that we stop screening for those we do have screening methods for makes no sense and logic is faulty.
We need screening tools for all cancers and we need better screening tools for those we already have. In addition the question that needs to be addressed overall is outcome. Does it make any difference to be able to detect a cancer early on when our treatment options are limited to begin with? It's an unproven assumption that early detection leads to better outcomes. Better treatments by defintion leads to better outcomes.
Stomach cancer == gastro (also helps diagnose gastritus and reflux)
Throat = visit ear nose throat doc and do screening with tube
Melanoma visit dermatologist for screening of skin for lesions
lung and general area + low dose CAT scan
Abdominal area organs bladder, kidneys, liver gallbladder, aorta pancreas = low dose CAT scan
Brain cancer probably a scan of the brain. Leukemia maybe is hard to test for?
colon = a colonoscopy which maybe is not fun but not that dangerous. Anyway I do these visits and tests regularly (except the scans every two years)
For the heart do a stress test with ultrasound every year or so if you have heart problems in the family. Less often if not.
This covers the majority of the most deadly cancers. Just my 2 cents worth.
Yes you are right about CT radiation. Low dose scans can be done usually.
And also about people busy. Its a drag in the USA to get appointments for many of these or the doctors. I have had medicare for two years and its hit or miss trying to get in. Luckily where I live Costa Rica its easy to get into to see good docs and tests are easy and reasonably priced.
The lockdowns and scare tactics that kept people out of screening and appointments during covid killed a lot of people with delayed diagnosis. Hopefully screening will get caught up now.
There are a lot of risks with those screenings... has anyone done the benefit vrs. risk analysis?
A LOT of risks? Care to elaborate? "Cancer" is a broad term with many important distinctions. As for benefit/risk analyses being done for various routine screenings, do the research. Low dose radiation exposure from mammograms or lung cancer screening, fine needle and local biopsies, etc. Then there are screens that have almost no risk at all including blood tests for cervical cancer, physical exams, ultrasounds, etc. The analyses are out there, but the discussion will end up right back where it started. You probably don't trust the entities doing the analyses or the sources compiling the statistics. Can't help with that.
Last edited by Parnassia; 12-17-2022 at 04:19 PM..
As stated in the article most cancers have no screening tests and are only diagnosed via presenting symptoms. Your suggestion that we stop screening for those we do have screening methods for makes no sense and logic is faulty.
Not to mention that for specific cancers the percentage successfully detected by screening is often much higher than 14%. Some of those higher percentages for common cancers were included right in the referenced article. If this magic 14% was the result of some sort of statistical averaging across the entire "cancer" realm (and includes data about cancers for which no screening exists) it probably isn't very meaningful. There are entire books written about how to manipulate statistics for effect. Would humanity benefit from more and better screening options? No question.
Last edited by Parnassia; 12-17-2022 at 04:29 PM..
My son died from Cholangiocarcinoma—
He was diagnosed Stage 4 in November just before Thanksgiving and died April 5 the next year—a little over 4 months from diagnosis
There is NO screening protocol for Cholangiocarcinoma
Most of the cases are found too late for early intervention and there is very little that can be done
There are other cancers that fall into that same category—no screening test
My best friend has her only niece who was diagnosed after Thanksgiving this year with stage 4 cancer of the throat—a rare type—there is no screening for this cancer
She always took care of her health—was a neonatal nurse—ran 4-5 miles a day—
Thought she has burned her esophagus eating really hot food—but not reason it was sore
Have friend of our daughter who started having pain in her side—went to dr
Found out it was stage 4 kidney cancer—they are trying an immune therapy to reduce the tumors first and then hope to try surgery—
I think the single greatest contribution from modern medicine would be a blood test that would screen for cancer—all cancer/any cancer—but there is not
AND insurance companies will not cover a full body MRI as a screening tool for cancers
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
