> "J" <macyinno@nospam.inv> wrote in message
> > <http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Blood-test-may-find-early-lung-cancer/2006/0
7/16/1152988411924.html>
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
>
> That is great news. Hope it pans out!!
I'm sorry, Mel and Penny and others reading.
I'm not sure this is helpful at all because of false positives and because they wouldn't know which lung, if at
all. So it could send millions asking for the bloodwork and then serial scans for nothing...
(unless they could find a way to target the proteins with chemo) but again, the false positives would be a
problem - people taking medicines for nothing?
Maybe it'll lead somewhere, maybe not. At least, they're working on it. :)
J
Figgertoes - 18 Jul 2006 05:12 GMT
>> "J" <macyinno@nospam.inv> wrote in message
>> > <http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Blood-test-may-find-early-lung-
[quoted text clipped - 46 lines]
> Maybe it'll lead somewhere, maybe not. At least, they're working on
> it. :) J
When I was talking to the group of researchers at the recent luncheon
following the passage of Colorado's non-smoking law, I was asking about
early detection for lung cancer & the reply was something to the effect
that there was no treatment in the earlier stages - something about not
being able to locate it. So where does that leave us? You want to find
it neither too early nor too late?
I have always wondered when Socks first 'came down' with cancer. He'd
had an, "I'm so tired" mantra for some time before diagnosis. Well,, he
had a heavy-duty job, a long highway commute, lots of volunteer work,
then he'd be on the computer till all hours - who wouldn't be tired? He
sure didn't seem ill, but I wonder if that was the genesis.
Fig
MZB - 18 Jul 2006 06:09 GMT
>> "J" <macyinno@nospam.inv> wrote in message
>> > <http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Blood-test-may-find-early-lung-cancer/2006/0
7/16/1152988411924.html>
[quoted text clipped - 55 lines]
> Maybe it'll lead somewhere, maybe not. At least, they're working on it. :)
> J
J:
True, but that's the same situation with the PSA test. If it gets high then
one takes a Free PSA Test and then possibly a biopsy. Most of those will
turn out okay. So, lots of "unecessary" tests. But, overall, the PSA has
resulted (arguably) in many lives saved. It can end up being the same here.
Still, this is the first I've heard of this. Shouldn't this be big news??
Mel
Steph - 18 Jul 2006 08:03 GMT
> True, but that's the same situation with the PSA test. If it gets high
> then one takes a Free PSA Test and then possibly a biopsy. Most of those
> will turn out okay. So, lots of "unecessary" tests. But, overall, the PSA
> has resulted (arguably) in many lives saved. It can end up being the same
> here.
That is extremely difficult to prove.
> Still, this is the first I've heard of this. Shouldn't this be big news??
>
> Mel