Thank you for your valuable comments. However, what would it mean if
next time (i plan to hav the CEA test again in 6 weeks) the test value
comes above 5. See, my thinking is that it takes only a little to have
a value of above 5, -though I undersand this is not a scientific
approach- which to me makes all the difference given the fact that 5
is the upper limit of the range. On the other hand, I have no symptoms
or bowel broblems. It is a very symplistic approach, I understand, but
shouldn't this sound alarming?
Peter Moran - 30 Mar 2005 07:27 GMT
> Thank you for your valuable comments. However, what would it mean if
> next time (i plan to hav the CEA test again in 6 weeks)
Why on earth would you do that? I agree with the advice already given.
Such testing is next to useless, and more likely to do you harm than good
through generating such worries and wholly unnecessary further
investigations. There is no evidence at all that CEA screening of
unsymptomatic patients will save lives from cancer (and precious little that
it saves lives even in patients already known to have had cancer, although
it is commonly used by oncologists in that context). Your doctor is
unwise to be supporting you in this.
Peter Moran
>the test value
> comes above 5. See, my thinking is that it takes only a little to have
> a value of above 5, -though I undersand this is not a scientific
> approach- which to me makes all the difference given the fact that 5
> is the upper limit of the range.
>On the other hand, I have no symptoms
> or bowel broblems. It is a very symplistic approach, I understand, but
> shouldn't this sound alarming?
Steph - 30 Mar 2005 09:33 GMT
> Thank you for your valuable comments. However, what would it mean if
> next time (i plan to hav the CEA test again in 6 weeks) the test value
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> or bowel broblems. It is a very symplistic approach, I understand, but
> shouldn't this sound alarming?
No