Re: color doppler ultrasound to detect prostate cancer?

In article <124q85sgja4pa68@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Pete" <pete@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

ugghle wrote:
Sorry ugg...but I have to agree with Jason whole heartedly. I'm not
an

expert on all the scanning techniques for internal organs, but I know
of
nothing to date that will identify cancer tissue (like you can by
looking at
it under a microscope). So where are you coming from when you say
that

"science and computers and new technology have made that almost
obselete".

Please explain and give some examples if you can...Pete


What I am saying is that there are further steps you can take before
doing a biopsy, or many other invasive procedures. Virtual
Colonoscopy is just one example where the detection rates are as good
or better than a regular colonoscopy. Reference The National Cancer
Institute article in the New England Journal of Medicine, December 4,
2003. "Summary, In a study of people at average risk for colorectal
cancer, a screening technique known as virtual colonoscopy was just
as accurate as traditional colonoscopy at detecting signs of colon or
rectal cancer, and was less invasive."

The key words here are "detecting signs of colon cancer or rectal cancer".
You still need to get a biopsy, so you just wasted your time getting the
virtual bull***, and will need an endoscopic colonoscopy anyway to get a
biopsy, so now you have to do the prep all over again (which is the hard
part), and you lost the money you just paid for the virtual (that is
probably not covered by your insurance).

And I'll take a colonoscopy any day compared to all the radiation you get in
a full body catscan. The catscan is way more invasive IMO. Except for the
anesthesia risk associted with EGD's and colonoscopies, they are simple
procedures...Pete


As far as the prostate, the
Prostate Cancer Research Institute (PCRI) at UCSF has the noninvasive
MSRI which looks at the prostate in mm slices physically and then with
spectroscopic imaging down to the molecular level with "demonstrated
high specificity in identifying cancer". In my own opinion, I would
want to know if there was anything to biopsy and if there was then
exactly where to take the biopsy. Again, in my own opinion, I would
use the 21st Century technology before having any invasive tests in
the preliminary stages. The final confirmation of any diagnosis
would have to be tissue.

Pete,
I agree with you. Doctors can learn a lot by looking at X-Rays and the
test results of other types of scanning equipment. They are looking for
tumors and other signs of cancer. However, the doctors needs to remove the
tumor or do a biopsy to know for sure whether or not cancer was present.
Perhaps special equipment will be developed in the future that will be
able to determine the presence of cancer cells. However, as far as I know,
no such equipment now exists. Doctors may make guesses when they see a
tumor on a Scan--but they do not know for sure until tests are none on the
tumor or the biopsy.
Jason

--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.



.

Quantcast