From: Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: brinl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: More Medical Controversies: PSA test Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 00:00:19 -0700 (PDT)
A single elevated PSA (prostate specific antigen) should be repeated in 4-6 weeks, instead of 1 week, to rule out a temporary elevation [which can signify prostate cancer; however this article did not address use of the ratio of free to bound PSA, which appears to be more specific for cancer if the level is elevated].
http://my.webmd.com/content/Article/65/72746.htm?printing=true "...The PSA blood test, first introduced in the U.S. in 1986, is still a controversial test for prostate cancer. Even though a PSA test is likely to detect prostate cancer at an earlier stage, there is no evidence that the test saves lives. This is because prostate cancer is generally slow-growing and typically strikes men at an older age, when they are more likely to die from other causes. Thus, treating prostate cancer in some men, the argument goes, may cause more harm than benefit..."
Of course, if it occurs in younger men (<~60>, it tends to be more aggressive, and treatment may extend life, whereas it generally doesn't at older ages (~75+).
Medicine is past the 'howitzer blasting' stage in many cases, but we're still hunting lots of 'wasps' with the equivalent of sawed-off shotguns... >:/
Debbi who is really hacked off that accurate advice can't be given for so many conditions (but things are still way better than they were 50 years ago)
Yeah, but as you say, things are definitely way better. :)
Some of the very recent breakthroughs are incredible. For instance, I've been doing a lot of reading about the new autologous fibrin glues (made from a patient's own centrifuged blood) that are being 'road tested' by physicians in surgeries. Apparently simply increasing the concentration of thrombin in a wound area allows for much more rapid fibrin clotting and a huge decrease in bleeding and bruising. They also seem to eliminate more than 90% of the hematomas and eliminate the need for pressure bandages and sutures in flap surgeries. More and more studies indicate that they are ideal for a very large range of invasive procedures -- everything from bone graft surgery to cardiac valve replacement surgery.
The only disadvantage, and it looks like a major obstacle that's yet to be hurdled, is that these fibrin clots are very attractive to infectious microbes.
I think stuff like this is fascinating. :)
Apropos of nothing, something you've probably seen already:
History of Modern Medicine: 2000 B.C. - "Here, eat this root." 1000 A.D. - "That root is heathen. Here, say this prayer." 1850 A.D. - "That prayer is superstition. Here, drink this potion." 1940 A.D. - "That potion is snake oil. Here, swallow this pill." 1985 A.D. - "That pill is ineffective. Here, take this antibiotic." 2000 A.D. - "That antibiotic is artificial. Here, eat this root."
Jon
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
