Re: color doppler ultrasound to detect prostate cancer?

Jason wrote:
In article <ajO3g.4289$xX5.78@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Rich256
<nospam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Jason wrote:
In article <124th3pev79gr77@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Pete"
<pete@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
ugghle wrote:
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

The question is if you don't detect any signs of colon cancer or
rectal cancer, then you don't need a biopsy. Here's another example,
when you go to the dentist and he thinks there might be a cavity but
can't see it, he has two choices. Drill and look or get more
information by taking an xray. I think an xray would be prudent to
confirm a cavity. I'm not saying technology is all inclusive, but I
sure would avail myself of all the non invasive exams prior ot any
"procedures".
Ugg...your missing a couple of my main points. Catscans are far from non-invasive (they are very invasive - a simple chest CT is equivalent to approx 100 flat view chest x-rays - you need to study radiation if
you think
that catscans are non-invasive ). Plus, the damn virtual full body scans (which may or may not include the colonoscopy) are very expensive and not covered by insurance. They basically open up a can of worms, for further investigation into something that is unlikely to be cancer in most cases (haven't you heard or read about this stuff - ie the virtual controversy). It's been on the news for years now.

I told you the that EGD's and colonoscopies are not that invasive (except for the possible risk with general anesthesia, which you would
probably know
about if you had GA before). Go ahead and waste your money on the virtual colonoscopy if you want to, because if it finds anything, you will end up with a real colonoscopy anyway.

People have the virtual stuff (mostly the more well to do people who can afford it) basically because they are over 50 and looking for a peace of mind (and they don't even have any symptoms). Then when it shows
something
suspicious, they are usually headed for a barrage of further tests, even though it may not be anything serious. I think it is bull*** personally, and that is my opinion. Don't kid yourself its all about making money in this beautiful (dog eat dog) capitalistic world we live in

Pete
Pete,
Several months ago, I read an article about the virtual colonoscopy. One
danger that you did not mention (unless I missed it) is the radiation
exposure that happens when a virtual colonscopy is done. I don't have the
article in front of me but I seem to recall reading that it produces what
I consider to be dangerous levels of radiation. A regular colonoscopy
causes NO radiation exposure. You may want to do a google search on this
subject before you consider it. Perhaps someone can compare the radiation
exposure produced by a virtual colonscopy compared to a standard dental
X-Ray.
Jason


And before you have a colonscopy done you might now see if the doctor uses the pill camera. Perhaps that will indicate if further inspection is needed.

http://www.healthcare.ucla.edu/vital-signs/article-display?article_id=423

As for radiation, anyone catch the History Channel on the foot Xray machines? Just a few days earlier I was just talking about and how we would go into shoe stores to look at our feet with their Xray machine. I wonder how many shoe salesmen of the day died of radiation.

If a 50 year old person received a virtual colonoscopy every 5 years, he
or she is putting their future health in danger. There is usally NO danger
involved in getting a normal colonoscopy every 5 years--after the age of
50 years old.
Jason

Virtual may not be as thorough as normal. I have seen something to the effect of what you say about radiation but there say no:

"Researchers from the Center for Radiological Research at Columbia University Medical Center estimated the radiation dose to different organs from adult CT colonography scans. Dose-, organ- and gender-specific excess relative risks for cancer incidence in Japanese A-bomb survivors were used as a basis to generate risk estimates for the U.S. population. This study found the estimated lifetime risk of cancer as a result of radiation from CT colonography in a 50-year-old subject is about 0.14 percent and 0.022 percent for a 70-year-old patient. The main organs found to be at risk for cancer are the colon, stomach and bladder."

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=26899


Then compare deaths to the Anesthesia.

.