medical tests - are too many good for you

I've been checked for ovarian cancer because my mother died of it and scanned for abdominal aortic aneurism because my father died of a rutured aneurism and my sister has had a small one detected. But I don't think there are any other hereditary conditions to concern me.

I've been checked for ovarian cancer because my mother died of it and scanned for abdominal aortic aneurism because my father died of a rutured aneurism and my sister has had a small one detected. But I don't think there are any other hereditary conditions to concern me.

I got my "invitation" for a mamogram in yesterday's post and I noticed the enclosed leaflet is very different to the last one. This one asks you to decide whether you want to have the test or not and outlines the possible benefits.

On the same note, I dread having a mamogram as it really hurts and no matter what anyone says, I put it off for as long as possible as having small boobs I find it extremely painful. Although perhaps it is equally as painful (or even more so) for those with bigger boobs, I have no idea.

being diagnosed as pre-diabetic is hugely useful and one of the tests which is really worthwhile it seems. It allows people to make the necessary changes to stop becoming fully diabetic, cut down on sugar and carbs and do more excercise - it can make a huge difference. So in this case, I totally disagree re the title.

it seems that a thorough examination of the breast, by the woman herself, and her doctor maybe once a year- can detect most problems before it escalates to the next stage. This is certainly what I do- it also depends of course on your family history and other health and lifestyle factors. I also remember reading that women who breastfed for a significant period of time are less likely to develop breast cancer.

Not impressed by this programme at all. Re prostate cancer and PSA. Close friend diagnosed in the early stages and successfully treated with targetted radiotherapy (3 gold balls inserted) . Only mention last night was leaving 'well' alone or surgery. No mention of other options.
Re mammograms. My sister would not be past treatement had she taken up offer of this anytime over the last 16 years. By the time she found the lump it had spread to lungs and liver.
What is needed is better analysis of biopsy.

Noticed MM's cholesterol was high! Though he was the diet and exercise guru?

Wonder how many of us are aware that even moderate drinking raises your risk of breast cancer?

'What is needed is better analysis of biopsy'.
Good point, Anya. Any test is only as good as the capability of the person analysing it and, as with most things there can be human error. The danger of a programme like this is that gives a scaredy cat like me carte blanche to not have any tests done [and then probably worry about that as well ].

And better methods of non-invasion detection even before the use of biopsies, ones which produce fewer false positives (or false negatives).

Well they could save money by not sending out letters to tell us they are going to send a letter about bowel cancer testing! Just had mine again and it annoys me every time. Maybe the first time it is OK but what is the point after that?

A friend kept reading about prostate cancer testing so went for a PSA test and quickly had his cancer operated on. I don't think he would agree that it was a waste.

The point about prostate cancer was that research had been done in America, following men who had been diagnosed with high PSA levels.
Half of them went on to have surgery, radiotherapy, chemo.
Half of them didn't.
After ten years, there was no difference in overall death rates. Some of them died from prostate cancer, but many of them died of other things.
Cancers vary greatly in how rapidly they spread and metastasise.

It was suggested that many men had had high PSA levels, and had undergone invasive, distressing treatment only to die a few years later from something else, and that if the cancer had been untreatred they would have been spared months of misery.

The programme showed a group on men at Addenbrookes who had decided that rather than having treatment for their cancer, they would rather monitor it and only have treatment if and when he cancer enlarged or showed signs of change.

It seems a sensible approach to me.

Jean that is interesting but the friend of mine who had it was quite young and very healthy. Same would apply to another friend with bowel cancer. Both were diagnosed before symptoms. I didn't see the programme!

anya some people have cholesterol due to family history/genetic reasons. One of our friend's had very high cholesterol despite being very skinny and ate a mainly vegetarian and microbiotic diet. He refused statins because he was skinny and had a very simple healthy diet- but his family history was weighed against him, tragically.

It's like Type 2 diabetes, it is also familial in some people and not always an indication of poor diet or poor lifestyle.

jane, totally agree.

Some fourteen or so years ago my husband decided to have a PSA test, it was very much in the news then. It was discovered that he had a very small cancer, and we were told that there were a great many men out there with a cancer this size, which would probably never grow any bigger and never cause any problems, however, there was also the chance that it would 'take off' and spread to his bones and be eventually untreatable, the choice was his, he could leave it or be treated. He decided on the treatment which was hormone injections (I think) followed by 30 days of radiotherapy. We do not know if the cancer would have spread, the PSA stays satisfactory and he is still alive to tell the tale. Perhaps some tests are necessary, and because of our age we are both called in for blood pressure and blood tests regularly, him more so than me, because of all his problems. I do not have any quarrel with this, I am please that we are being looked after in the best way possible. We are thankful for the NHS

Another snippet from the programme which surprised me was a cardiologist saying that 50% of all people who suffered heart attacks had no identifiable risk factors - family history, high cholesterol etc.
So as with many cancers, although you can reduce some risks with lifestyle changes, in some cases it's just bad luck.

no-one on the programme, or here, is saying some tests are not useful- as said, testing blood sugar so that anyone borderline can make the necessary dietary and life-style changes (which will work with most people, not all) and of course taking BP pressure and pulse, and many more- just that too many tests are done, for no particularly good reason- and cost a fortune which could be better spent elsewhere- and create un-necessary anxiety, particularly in some more vulnerable persons.

Most doctors will tell you that a doctor that insists on tests all the time rather than trust their diagnostic and experience, may well not be the best doctors.

2 wks ago OH had his screening scan for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm, shockingly they discovered a large Aneurysm that needs 'fixing' ASAP. We have already been to see the surgeon and had some of the tests to see if he is fit enough for the surgery, without that screening scan we would never of known as he had no symptoms or history family and is fit and healthy apart from the usual joint pain.
We have always taken part in any screening offered to us which as others have said gives us a chance to change life style etc.. but sometimes these test are literally LIFESAVERS.. I am so grateful it was discovered in good time and look forward to successful surgery and OH being given his life back.

Do you mean familial hypercholesterolemia Granjura ?

Wow Tanith that's dramatic. I wasn't aware that AAA screening is available.

Tanith, what an outcome. I do hope your DH's surgery is a complete success. My family have some recent history of aortic aneurism and I had an ultrasound scan a few weeks ago which showed no aneurism, but did reveal - surprise, surprise - 'multiple gallstones'! I've probably had these for years and never had any trouble, so no problem. Apparently about 10% of people have them.

AAA screening is available to all men over 65, as that is the group most at risk.
Good luck to your husband, Tanith.

I suspect that a lot of people are not as knowledgeable as those who post on here and they may well be the ones who need the screening. It may well be an opportunity for the docs to discuss lifestyle etc with the patient.

Hope all goes well with your DH Tanith - at least they've found it before anything awful happened.

My DH had that scan and everything was OK, but when I mentioned it to my BiL (69) he'd never been invited for screening and he won't ask his GP for the test.

Can't understand that 'head in the sand' attitude

The test has only been available for all 65 year old men since the end of 2013.
A man aged 69 would not have been invited for a test but have to ask for one. Maybe he thinks that reaching 69 is okay anyway, and does not want excessive testing.

I know why I'm getting confused it's because DH is almost same age as BiL but it was rolled out between 2009-2013, so he was obviously in an area which rolled it out earlier.