Book Title: Should I Be Tested for Cancer? Maybe Not and Here's Why
 

This is a very well researched book that tells about the problems of screening and testing for early signs of cancer: Namely, the harder you look -or the more you look- the more you will find. If you look hard enough almost everyone has cancer. Then there's the problem of who's looking through the microscope. Some pathologists will see cancer where others do not.

Many early stage cancers will never progress and some will even regress and disappear. Of course there are fast growing cancers that can kill you. But these are often the least likely to be found early (or in time) because they can pop up between regular screenings. This book is not totally against screening and testing, it simply tells you about some of the dangers.

Up until now, I had concentrated on what to do to avoid getting cancer, by way of diet and exercise. So this book opened up a whole new world from the perspective of screening and testing. It's been a great learning experience and I highly recommend it to anyone who's interested in cancer.

Each to his own, but I don't think a yearly mammogram or routine PSA or 5-year colonoscopy are "looking hard enough and long enough until you find something".

The author has a section on each type of cancer and I can't remember all of it, so I'll just try to give some information on prostate cancer (as best I can from memory). Before they started doing PSA tests, they kept track of the death rate from prostate cancer. On a graph, the death rate is pretty much shown as a level (steady) line over time (decades perhaps). Then when they started doing PSA tests they kept track of how many were done and that was represented by another line on the graph. It was a line that went up steeply over time. It was something over a million PSA tests. But as the number of PSA tests went up sharply, the death rate basically stayed the same. It went down ever so slightly toward the end of the graph but the author, a doctor, thinks that it was likely the result of better treatments that have come about in recent years.

Essentially, there's no benefit to speak of (overall) to giving PSA tests. But there are risks from getting biopsies and then unnecessary treatments and/or operations.

When they do prostate autopsies of men who have died from other causes, they are able to do a much more in depth screening of the prostate. They cut the prostate into very very thin slices and look carefully at as much of it as they can. When they do this, it turns out that there's much more cancer than anyone ever would have imagined. In other words, almost every man has some cancer in his prostate. The sampling they do by biopsy is nothing compared to what they do at autopsy.

But when someone is told they have "no cancer", after biopsy, they feel good, when actually it's likely they do have some cancer and it just wasn't detected.

If you look harder you'll find more: Yes, at biopsy, you can take 6, 8, 10, 15, 20 or more samples. And research has shown that the harder you look, the more you'll find.

One medical expert wrote an article in WSJ about a year ago about the published medical statistics. the author climed that the dirty little secret in the medical community about the effacy of various treatments (cancer) is that they esclude those individuals who have undiagnosed cancers. For instance how do you reconcile a person who is diagnosed trwated and lies say for 7 more years vis a via an individual who was never diagnosed and lived and died in that same 7 year period without any treatment.

So that the OP excerpts fro this book make sense. Medical experts have a tendency to reverse their opinions too often. So our best defenses are education moderations in all things and asking medical experts a whole lot of questions

I work in the medical field and I can tell you that early diagnosis & treatment save lives. I, for one, will continue my annual mammo and pap and my husband will get his annual PSA test. Good luck to you.

Me too and we will continue our blood tests for sugar and cholesterol and vitamin D etc.etc. and EKGs' and stress tests and blood pressure monitoring and bone density etc.

What you don't know can hurt ya.

But Village Pl, this is a free country and you do what feels right to you.

Taking tests for preventative measures is something I believe in. I would rather know where I stand than wonder what's going on but that's me.

If this thread is going the way of having a coloscopy done or not have done because of the risk invovled, let me say everyone does what they think is right for them.

There's risk in everything we do from driving, possibly having a fall, etc. Life without some form of risk would be very dull. IMHO

I had a brother who was so worried about his heart for twenty years, (had several heart attacks), that he would up passing away from bone cancer.

Go figure.

I for one find much serenity in knowing everything is going to be OK.

I will continue to get my PSA test too. 1) I get it at no cost through my HMO and 2) My PSA number has been around 0.9 to 1.2 for the past 10 years. But what will I do if the number suddenly goes higher? There are lots of false positives. Should I get a biopsy? A biopsy that is positive for cancer may be a false positive too. The "cancer" may never progress to anything life-threatening. But if I were to get treatment, they would claim that testing saved a life.

The Thyroid gland is similar to the prostate in that almost everyone has some cancer in their Thyroid. If they happen to find it while checking for something else, they would most likely recommend treating it, even though most thyroid cancers will never progress to be life threatening. Then, after treatment, they would claim that testing saved a life.

This happens with early stage breast cancer too. A woman in The Villages was diagnosed with early stage breast cancer. She decided to wait and first try dietary changes. She went on a 80% raw food diet. At her next check up they couldn't find any trace of cancer. Regardless of the diet change, the cancer may not have progressed or it may have receeded on its own. But if the doctors had treated it, they would have said, "testing saved a life!" And who would ever be able to prove otherwise?

People may ask, "what's the down side to getting treatment? If you get something treated, you make sure it's taken care of, rather than taking a chance." Well, there's plenty of harm from unneeded treatments. Radiation and chemotherapy damage good cells as well as cancer cells. Those who get chemotherapy have a greater risk of getting cancer again.

Another example: Some lung cancers (or cells that look like cancer) will never progress to be life threatening. But if they decide to remove a small piece of lung where the "cancer" is located, that person will be at higher risk for pneumonia. Not to mention the fact that all operations (big and small) carry some risk for infection and can even trigger dementia. But, again, they will claim to have saved a life.

Interesting thread. I've been wondering about nonmelanoma skin cancer. I recently had two such surgeries and can't help but wonder if they were really necessary. One was a tiny little "pimple" and the dermatologist cut 2 and a half inches to be sure he got it.

I think skin cancers on the senior population are virtually unlimited. I feel fairly confident that when I go for a screening next year, he'll find more.

Would love to hear your opinions.