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.
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.
You left off breast cancer. Mammogram, ultrasound and breast mri
1. Fact, both Mammography and certain types of CT screenings do expose you to unneeded radiation. One reason the recommendations for Mammography were pulled back from 40 to 50.
2. Fact, Colonoscopys have risk for perforation. One reason they are not recommended over 70 years old any longer. Cologuard is known for false positive tests... leading to a colonoscopy.
3. Not sure you all read the article. For Breast cancer and colon cancer the numbers are higher than 14%... it is just that there are not good ways of detecting the 500 other kinds of cancer.
4. The focus should be on demanding that medical care find a better way and adopt things like liquid biopsies. Which can test for 50+ types of cancer. https://www.galleri.com. It is a fact that right now there are blood tests that can test for cancer that are not used.
I found I had breast cancer nearly 3 years ago. I'd had it for YEARS and had complained about not feeling well for years. I had yearly mammograms AND ultrasounds due to dense tissue. When I went in for that last mammogram, they had posters everywhere about 3D technology. I asked the technician about it, wondering if it was good enough so that I wouldn't have to do both scans yearly (mammograms were covered by insurance but I had to pay for most of the ultrasound out of pocket). She scoffed, said it was no better than a good mammogram.
I was initially diagnosed with a lesion. My second opinion found the cancer, using the films from the initial place.
Now that I've had cancer and surgery to remove it. I am no longer allowed any scanning. There are some blood tests for specific cancers but they don't seem to be wrapped up in one screening test.
MRIs will pick up every imperfection in your body leading to unnecessary biopsies. When I was doing more research after my dx, I'd read that overseas somewhere (UK?), they were working on a small MRI machine where you could have spot scanning done, as in just the breasts without going into a full machine. They also have a second way to test for bone density, but it's really testing for bone breakage risk. Some women who'd been dx'd with osteoporosis did not have a high risk of bone breakage and were being put through infusions unnecessarily. Why doesn't the US allow for these tests?
How much is that Galleri test? It sounds like it looks for abnormalities but it can't find specific cancers. I know some women that test with something similar and when I asked my doctors they felt the results weren't definitive enough. It seems to be telling you that you have more or less cancer cells floating around at any given time.
"The Galleri test is recommended for use in adults with an elevated risk for cancer, such as those aged 50 or older. The Galleri test is intended to be used in addition to, and not replace, other cancer screening tests your healthcare provider recommends. The Galleri test does not detect all cancers and not all cancers can be detected in the blood. It also does not measure your genetic risk of developing cancer in the future."
Cologuard: I looked into this as I was terrified of the procedure. It hadn't been out long at that point. I was told that it wasn't as accurate, and if it detected cancer you would then be getting a colonoscopy and paying for it since it wasn't considered diagnostic. That was enough to scare me into the procedure. I don't know if any of this has changed, but I do see a lot more cologuard commercials these days.d
You left off breast cancer. Mammogram, ultrasound and breast mri
Yes I forgot the breast cancer. Dont know why I left that out since my sister in law was just diagnosed with breast cancer due to a mammogram and needle biopsy. In her case the screening maybe will save her life since it picked up a very small nodule which was shown to be cancer from the biopsy.
However the docs say it is stage zero. never heard of stage zero but that is what they call it as they say it is a very small encapsulated nodule which has not spread.
going to cut it out and have three weeks of radiation.
Prospects are good.
Anyone out there have experience with that, suggestions etc?
Also now I think about it here in Costa Rica we do a lot of ultrasound work and we have a great radiologist doc who does ultrasounds.
My wife does one on her breasts every year and this guy picks up nodules and he can tell if it is not anything to worry about. She also does mammograms.
For people with radiation limits maybe ultrasounds can help. MRIs are worth looking at as well now that you mention it. Thanks for that.
The main point of the article is that screening is highly effective in detecting cancers and that it would be beneficial to develop better screening tests for more cancers. The article concludes that current screening tests would detect more cancers if more people underwent screening.
More than half of breast cancers are found by screening. The article says that 61% of breast cancers are detected by screening. Would you stop women from having mammograms?
More than half of cervical cancers are found by screening. The article says that 52% of cervical cancers are detected by screening. Would you stop women from having pap tests?
From your source: "The technical report notes that just four types of cancer－breast, cervical, colorectal and lung－have screening tests recommended for use by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, and the percent of cancers detected by screening varies across those types: 61% of breast, 52% of cervical, 45% of colorectal and 3% of lung cancers. The report also includes data on prostate cancer, even though screening for prostate cancer is not broadly recommended, and the data suggests that 77% of prostate cancers are detected by screening."
You are pushing your private agenda against proven tests and treatments to scare people into avoiding procedures that could save lives.
Dogs can detect cancer. That should be the entire focus of cancer screening going forward -- raise and train cancer detecting dogs for an annually meet and greet. They work for kibble and don't ask for vacation pay.
Hospitals would still charge an arm and a leg for a Fido sniffing.
"The Galleri test is recommended for use in adults with an elevated risk for cancer, such as those aged 50 or older. The Galleri test is intended to be used in addition to, and not replace, other cancer screening tests your healthcare provider recommends. The Galleri test does not detect all cancers and not all cancers can be detected in the blood. It also does not measure your genetic risk of developing cancer in the future."
Of course they have to say that. Don't want to have this product replacing the screenings that are a cash cow. I understand it is not that great for stage 1 and 2 cancers (like 50%) but it is much better at stage three and four. I also think false positives are rare.
Given how easy it is to get? With no bad side effects?
It would seem a no brainer.
It also gets better each year as they tweak it.
There are plenty of blood tests for other cancers they don't use because they are not "perfect" but no test is perfect.
CA125 for Ovarian cancer. Which I understand is very good no negative results.
I found a precursor to blood cancer with a blood test called serum electropheresis.
Scientists from the National University of Singapore (NUS) have discovered a novel low-cost method of testing for cancers. Called the Heatrich-BS assay, this new test sequences clinical samples that have been heated in order to isolate cancer-specific signatures found in a patient’s blood.
The new method provides a promising non-invasive alternative to tissue biopsies. It costs around S$50 from start to finish, compared to other sequencing methods that can cost up to S$1,000 to conduct. Led by Assistant Professor Cheow Lih Feng, the team comprising researchers from the NUS Department of Biomedical Engineering under the College of Design and Engineering as well as the NUS Institute for Health Innovation & Technology, is now exploring industry partnerships to bring their technology to market.
“When you have a S$50 test, it opens up a lot of avenues because it is affordable, so you can do the test quite regularly,” said Asst Prof Cheow, pointing to the potential for their assay to be used in regular cancer monitoring.
Good to know what you have or find negative. Sad that there is no cure or permeant depletion .
Billions and I mean billions of charity funds. Research, technology, specific hospital divisions . And we still have more failure then success. That should be the indicator on investing in preventive and early detection.
I blew money on testing as my family gene showed I have the marker for a specific cancer. For two years now I get hounded by three medical trained doctors to get more testing! Despite it always coming back negative. I told them I am fed up with all these tests and huge bills to constantly come back negative. It's almost like they would love it if I resulted in a positive! I'm not the one pushing for all these screenings ...time off work .. and being told by insurance they won't pay for the specific tests.
I've been reading medical articles that many screening tests are not useful, specifically mammograms and colonoscopy.
When comparing those getting these tests vs. those not getting the tests there is almost no difference in death rate, even including finding cancer via testing.
I'm not much concerned about dangers of taking these tests, have done several colonoscopies and mammograms but think doctors push them as a standard of care when tests are not really doing much except providing cash flow.
My husband went to his primary doctor twice over several months for swollen lower leg and pain and got nowhere until he (husband) pushed very hard the third time for a test to see what could be causing it. DVT was the diagnosis after screening. Why did it take so much effort on patients part? We have good insurance to cover expenses. Covid is occupying 98% of doctors mentality now, the rest of our health is up to us, the consumers.
We've re-started wearing masks in public now because getting Covid 6 months ago from a Costco employee I never want to get it again and risk long-Covid. That will take our life away and I will put up with younger peoples mask disapproval to retain my health.
Yes I forgot the breast cancer. Dont know why I left that out since my sister in law was just diagnosed with breast cancer due to a mammogram and needle biopsy. In her case the screening maybe will save her life since it picked up a very small nodule which was shown to be cancer from the biopsy.
However the docs say it is stage zero. never heard of stage zero but that is what they call it as they say it is a very small encapsulated nodule which has not spread.
going to cut it out and have three weeks of radiation.
Prospects are good.
Anyone out there have experience with that, suggestions etc?
Also now I think about it here in Costa Rica we do a lot of ultrasound work and we have a great radiologist doc who does ultrasounds.
My wife does one on her breasts every year and this guy picks up nodules and he can tell if it is not anything to worry about. She also does mammograms.
For people with radiation limits maybe ultrasounds can help. MRIs are worth looking at as well now that you mention it. Thanks for that.
It's known as "carcinoma in situ" and is characterized by not having grown our spread outside the area where it originated. The fact that it's encapsulated is good in that the capsule separates the cancer cells from the normal tissue.
I've had a number of friends with this type of cancer, breast adenocarcinoma in situ. I think the treatment you describe is pretty much standard, ie, surgery to remove the tumor, radiation for several weeks. The prognosis is excellent, my friends who have had it never had a recurrence of the cancer, though they follow instructions for the surveillance following the radiation.
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.
