RE: [AIRNEWS] Sydney Morning Herald 7/10/02 'Searching for trouble'

[Michael Sobotta]

It would be a pleasure Kevin! I see AIRNEWS as a forum to express ideas that may be used by the institute to understand how its members feel. I'm currently halfway through an oncology block and have learnt a lot about the ins and outs of the use of screening tests. Here is a list of criteria that has been created 1. Condition screened should be Important. 2. Acceptable treatment available. 3. Diagnostic and Treatment facilities available. 4. Early disease is Recognisable. 5. Treatment Options standardised. 6. Sensitive, specific, reproducible - Gaurantee. 7. Examination tolerated by pt. 8. Natural history of disease known. 9. Simple Inexpensive test. 10. Screening is Continuous.   1-10 spells iatrogenic to remind us that everything carries a risk. (I believe the original is from one of the Oxford med handbooks) Mammograms, PAP smears and to a degree prenatal US detect abnormalities to which a successful intervention may be carried out. 5 year survival rates for breast Ca is up in the 90% range, advanced cervical cancer is a rarity in Australia (not so the 3rd world), whereas for some lung cancers 5 year survival is between 5-10%! It is possible that full body scans may be the panacea of all screening tests however at this point in time there is no proof. It also just doesn't stack up as a cost-effective screening modality. One thing that bugs me is that radiologists are quick to point out the necessity of good clinical history on a referral, in this situation it seems to me that it is a small needle hiding in a big haystack. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Kevin Power Sent: Sunday, 3 November 2002 9:41 To: AIRNEWS Subject: Re: [AIRNEWS] Sydney Morning Herald 7/10/02 'Searching for trouble' You are right Peter, but we don't want members going out willy-nilly making statements on behalf of AIR, we need Institute guidance we need to act as a body. Then we could make Mike Sobotta our spokesman for the AIR policy on this matter. That is the democratic way.   Kevin Power ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Rouse To: AIRNEWS Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 9:33 PM Subject: RE: [AIRNEWS] Sydney Morning Herald 7/10/02 'Searching for trouble' No question the AIR needs a position. But "the AIR" position?  Shouldn't that be "our" position? We should be careful not to abdicate responsibilities under the cloak of "them". At the end of the day, if the "them" are left with all the responsibility for action without your input, them you will wear the consequences (and the AIR is "us" not "them"). You are right! What a great PR position to present a responsible response to this. How do you think "we" should proceed? Peter -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Michael Sobotta Sent: Monday, 7 October 2002 11:50 AM To: AIRNEWS Subject: [AIRNEWS] Sydney Morning Herald 7/10/02 'Searching for trouble' Does the AIR have a position on full body CT 'screening' examinations? What a nice article to get some publicity for radiographers standing up for the public in our position as 'defenders against aberrant radiation doses'!   I for one would like to see at least a letter to the editor from the AIR stating their position. I would also be interested to see if there are any rads subscribing to AIRNEWS that perform these CTs. Is it under pressure from radiologist? Personal investment? mike sobotta