Good question. A blood test costs 100 bucks, cancer treatment costs 100 thousand dollars.

This may not be a valid comparison, as it is related to a canine and not a human. I had a dog that I took in to see the Vet for a lump. They did bloodwork and said that her results looked great (normal) probably nothing to worry about. We had a biopsy done on her lymph node (where we felt the lump), and a couple of days later the results showed that she had Lymphosarcoma, diffuse large cell type. Very dissappointing that the good results from the blood test gave us false hope. They said the cancer had already spread throughout her body, and she was only 8 yrs. old.

__________________
"We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanual Kant~

NatMedTalk and Beyond

Good question! I haven't been dealing with a lot of cancer followup, but I'll tell you what I think is the answer from my general knowledge. There's a lot of different types of breast cancers, that can produce different types of markers in the blood. Once it's been diagnosed with a biopsy, the doctors know what kind to look for. They will also find out if the tumor produces one of the many types of tumor markers. If it does produce one of these, you can follow the levels in blood tests, and then you'll know if the level of this particular marker gets on the rise, that means the tumor is on the rise. One should also remember that if a tumor recurs, it might be in a different place in the body, so the blood test would pick that up when a breast exam/mammography would not.

These tumor markers are generally used, as you said, to monitor the progress of the tumor. There could be many reasons why it is not used to screen the healthy population for tumors. Most likely, this is because 1. A negative blood test would not exclude cancer, some of them don't produce markers, 2. There may be a lot of false positives, causing a lot of grief and extra resources to follow up healthy people 3. The blood test would not detect cancer on an early enough stage.

So what it boils down too is, when you know there is a specific tumor in the body for sure, and that this tumor produces a specific marker, then you can use this marker to monitor diseas progress in that particular case. But it would not be sensitive/specific enough for the general population.


As for the other replies, I kinda forgot to follow this thread. Arrowind: Of course there is no way I'll be able to read about all of that, but I feel that when someone (pinball) is making strong claims, trying to belittle me and my work, then I have a right to demand some proper sources. I don't collect studies myself, I find them by searching pubmed. Or better yet, Cochrane libraries.

Drack, welcome back!

Hi Drack, welcome to the forum! I believe that cancer is spread as the result of having biopsies and having polyps removed, as in colonoscopies. I think that cutting into the area, makes the cancer spread to other areas of the body.

I know someone who was very healthy, exercised, didn't smoke or drink, healthy diet, hardly any meat or sweets, etc. He had the recommended colonoscopy after the age of 50, and it was negative. Then had another, and had a few polyps removed. After that he's been battling cancer of the prostate, liver, etc. He's over 60 now, and is still having tumors removed, chemo, radiation, drugs, and he's been going downhill ever since.

Although my doctor keeps pushing it because of my age (late 50's), I do not intend to get a colonoscopy. If I'm told I have a cancerous tumor somewhere else, then I'll have to make the decision of whether or not to get a biopsy. Right now I'm leaning towards using natural, alternative methods for cancer treatment.

Sometimes I think that all these recommended preventative tests like mammograms, colonoscopies, etc. are more the cause of the cancer instead of the prevention of it. I think they push a lot of these expensive tests just as a way to make money. Just my opinion, what do you think?

PS: forgot to mention that the first cancer was colon, and he had a section removed and was treated intiially for that.

I can see how you would think so, based on your friend's story. But in colonoscopy, when they are cutting out polyps, these polyps are not yet malignant. They are so called pre-malignant tumors, and if they are not removed they might grow into cancer, so I definitely think colonoscopy has a good effect. Furthermore, colon cancer is more likely to be cured when discovered early, and a colonoscopy has the possibility of discovering a cancer before you get symptoms. As for your friend, he was simply unlucky. Even with these screening programs, people do develop cancer (even people that live very healthy), but the screening can often detect it early enough, so that it's possible to cure it.

For the record, your thinking is true for some cancers (can't remember which type), where the rules clearly say to not biopsy, because it might facilitate spread. But different cancers begave differently, and the guidelines reflect that.

As for mammograms, one could argue that because it uses x-rays, it can slightly increase risk of breast cancer, but studies show that women that get regular mammography screening have a lower risk of dying from breast cancer.


So get your colonoscopy, if you can afford it. If not, there's a cheaper option: a simple digital rectal examination can often detect both rectal and prostate cancer, so you should at least get that done regularly. And also get your hemoglobin checked, cause one of the most common presentations of colon cancer is iron deficiency anemia.

Thanks for your honest reply Drack. I'll still avoid the colonoscopy, a regular fecal occult testing will suffice for now. I'm a woman, so I don't need a prostate exam. I have health insurance that covers all of the recommended preventative testing, so that isn't an issue if I desire the procedures.

Speaking of mammograms I recall reading that when a doctor is checking the breast for possible cancerous lumps he is not supposed to use excessive pressure as this might cause some cells to break lose and go wandering off to other parts of the body.

Yet as I understand it with a mammogram the first thing they do is �painfully� squeeze the breast between two plates and then hit it with X-rays. What happen to not using extreme pressure and do not X-ray cause cancer? Then if something is seen in the X-ray a biopsy will probably be ordered.

Now even if the tests come up negative, with year after year of this type of testing there is the possibility that all this �testing� can produce the very thing you�re trying to avoid?

Finally I seem to remember reading a survey that showed that women who got regular mammograms did not live any longer then those that did not.

I believe that!

It's not all about the prostate, it's also about rectal cancer. We had a queen once that died from rectal cancer because the doctor was too nervous to do the exam on her highness. So if you want to be on the safe side, you can get that done, it's safe and cheap, though a bit embarassing.

Oh yeah, the fecal blood testing is a good idea as well, forgot to mention that.


Mad scientest:

There's nothing wrong with your logic, but at the end of the day, what matters is if it improves survival. There are several studies, they may show conflicting results, but the consensus based on the collected studies done is that it does reduce mortality, but not without a price. This article sums it up very well: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/coc...877/frame.html

Hi Drack, my father has copd and is on taking a huge amount of prescirtion meds and steroids, he has been recieving steroids almost constantly for past 2 years and antibiotics for almost a decade, he has now decided to try his best to stop all prescription meds and try a simple restrictive immune system diet, can you please advise me on how he should stop taking the meds as he is determained to do so, and his own doctor understandably cannot advise him to stop meds so is not willing to advise him on how to go about stopping, ie advice on weaning, if you require i could send you a list on pm of what he is currently taking, any advice would be greatfully recieverd.

Hello Carol and welcome to the forum. Just want to let you know that Drack is not on the forum anymore.. don't remember why he is not here, if he just got bored or what. I also think there was some concern that he was not really a doctor... just don't really remember but he won't be around to answer you. I suggest that you take your question and start a new thread with it under general questions. We have lots of folks here who can give you ideas.

__________________

Surprise! I'm not gone entirely. But as I've mentioned before, I find it hard to get the time to follow a forum closely, so I've just followed this thread, and it sorta died. Oh yeah and there was someone questioning whether I'm a doctor or not, which is a legitimate concern I guess, since you can't really ever trust anyone on th internet. Anyways, what's the reason your father want to stop all his medications? Any particular side effects, or has he just jumped on the idea that "all drugs are bad" that seems to be so popular these days? In any case, I need to know a bit more about him. Telling me what meds he's taking would be a good start, as well as his age and medical history. If he's taking oral steroids, quitting them cold turkey can be deadly, for example, so make sure he doesn't do anything rash just yet. For the record, I don't think this is a good idea at all, but I need to know more details before I can say more.

Welcome back Drack, nice to you see back on the board.

Carol started another thread.

She asked what to do when stopping medicaiton specific to COPD and long term antibiotic usage, not if it was a good idea to stop the medicaiton. I can only assume that her father is a big grown up man who can make his own decisions on whether to continue with medicine or not. People with COPD know full well the conventional medical perspective of the consequences of such an act,and especially since he's been treated for up to 10 years.