----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 10:18
PM
Subject: RE: [AIRNEWS] Sydney Morning
Herald 7/10/02 'Searching for trouble'
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.
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 -----
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
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
