|
Post by principled on Apr 1, 2011 18:11:16 GMT 1
Marchesa I suspect that any testing for common conditions is less costly than trying to correct it after it has taken hold (eg cervical cancer, breast cancer and -once we get the new urine test- prostrate cancer). In the case of bowel cancer the incidence rises dramatically post 50- have a look at: info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/bowel/incidence/#By ). My mother was diagnosed with colon cancer (before screening was introduced) in her early 70s, despite operations which bought her about 6 years, the cancer had spread to the liver, which is what ultimately killed her. Had she been tested earlier, then she may have lived no longer (one has to die sometime!), but perhaps her QUALITY of life may have been better. P
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Apr 1, 2011 19:05:12 GMT 1
Sorry about your mum, principled. You're right, if she had had the chance of this bowel cancer kit she may have been spared the cancer.
Is there a reliable test for prostate cancer in the offing? I know someone who "scored" 8 out of 15 on some supposedly relevant scale. Do you know anything about that, principled?
|
|
|
Post by principled on Apr 1, 2011 21:18:23 GMT 1
Oh dear Marchesa, I have rather ruined your Happy birthday thread. Apologies Prostrate cancer is a bit of a hobby horse for me. The trouble has been that the PSA blood test is not very good and can give false positives and negatives. But there has been a breakthrough with a urine test. See: www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12610972Better get back to celebrations! P ;D
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Apr 2, 2011 13:11:23 GMT 1
Thanks for that information, principled. I'll pass it on.
|
|