Re: color doppler ultrasound to detect prostate cancer?

Jason wrote:
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

You are right Jason. That's what the damn pathologists and microscopes are
for :-) ...Pete


.

Quantcast