Oct 31, 2011 Health
, screening or examination with the aim of early detection of cancer has been suggested as a good thing to do. Now some experts suggest screening for prostate cancer, breast cancer and cervical cancer needs to be reduced. Experts often emphasize screening can also be detrimental.
United States Preventive Services Task Force has evaluated the evidence and issued a new screening guidelines include:
1. Women around the age of 40 years did not benefit from mammograms.
2. Women aged 50-74 years should consider doing mammograms every two years instead of every year.
3. Most women should have Pap smear tests for cervical cancer every 3 years instead of every year.
4. This year the PSA is widely used for prostate cancer screening, but not always useful and sometimes even be detrimental. PSA stands for prostate-specific antigen, tests showed that the protein produced by prostate cells. PSA tests are performed to help diagnose prostate cancer in men.
The researchers have studied the risk and cost of screening is more stringent than before. A new analysis of mammography can be concluded that, had a mammogram to detect cancer in 138,000 women each year and as many as 120000-134000 of the women had the deadly cancer or have cancer that grows so slowly that it does not need to be treated.
The cancer experts say that, they can not ignore the evidence of the past 10 years which suggests that early detection through screening area can be helpful in some cases. But at the same time, the study also defines screening can sometimes be detrimental.
Although some experts say cancer screening can sometimes be harmful, but some doctors fear lawsuits if they do not do screening on patients and patients proved to have cancer that can be fatal.
Most physicians, who deal directly with patients, still recommend screening patients quite often and they agreed. Probably a fairly common cancer screening is considered to be detrimental in terms of cost.
The results of studies that suggest that cancer screening is done frequently, it is still considered highly controversial by the fact that there are now. As a new journal that is in New England Journal of Medicine, , which notes that one recent study concluded that 5.2 million U.S. dollars of funds must be spent on screening with the aim of preventing one death due to prostate cancer.
But many people, including doctors, a loss to convey that the screening is quite often is a disadvantage, which will be well understood.
“For 10 years as a reliable screening efforts early detection of disease cancer, so it can not instantaneously to change these beliefs, “said Dr.. Timothy J. Wilt, of the University of Minnesota as reported from The New York Times , Monday (10/31/2011).
In recent years, researchers have found that, in part indolent cancers. Most of these cancers grow very slowly or stopped growing altogether. Even some of the cancer regression and do not need to be treated, so it is not dangerous.
Dr. Brawley also see a lot of people are beginning to understand the limitations of screening and risk. Though slow, but a change in the face of the campaign is very often about cancer screening by hospitals and advocacy groups still have misconceptions about the benefits and risks of screening.
( ir / ir )
Incoming search terms:
- dr timothy wilt of the university of minnesota led that study
- early detection of cancer may not be a good thing
- Should money be spent on Prostate Cancer screening that is unreliable