Anitbody screening tests for cancer
"There is now. It's so new your doctor may not know about it yet. It's called the Anti-Malignan [sic] Antibody Screening (AMAS), and it tests for antibodies that indicate the presence of cancer."It appears to be the same as the "Anti-malignin antibody screening" promoted by one "Oncolab" (http://www.amascancertest.com/amas.html)
-------------------
There are lots of "screening tests for cancer." This report is deceptive. If anything, this is just one more proprietary mail-order test with, at best, very limited application for a very narrow population.
Two things can be considered when looking for legitimacy of any laboratory screening test.
First, is it a valid test? That is, has it been studied enough to determine the positive and negative predictive values in a target population, and are the risks of getting a false-positive, or false-negative test result minimal enough to generate confidence about the accuracy of the result?
According the website, low false-positive and false-negative rates of 1% on repeat determinations of 24-hour sera "have permitted successful screening in selected high-risk populations." I didn't verify this information in the references or other scientific resources. One thing for sure, "selected high-risk" means the test isn't indicated for large or general populations.
Second, is the test useful for making clinical decisions? "Useful" is a subjective term, and many new and existing cancer screening tests continue to be hotly contested in the medical community over their specific usefulness as determined by a potential cost or risk versus benefit ratio. In many cases, science isn't helpful in making this determination. For example, CEA and many tumor antigen tests can be widely accepted, but, per the science, are not very useful cancer screening tests for the vast majority of the population. Newer (and often proprietary) genetic (DNA) or stool antigen cancer screening tests really can't predict any degree of reduced morbidity associated with the cancer for which it is being used to screen. But, this doesn't mean these tests will never be useful for screening.
Experience has shown that, with a few exceptions, cancer screening tests for general populations are much more likely to lead to unnecessary follow-up procedures, that carry their own risks and costs to perform, than they are in identifying an unexpected, and immediately treatable condition.
dras
-------------------
There are lots of "screening tests for cancer." This report is deceptive. If anything, this is just one more proprietary mail-order test with, at best, very limited application for a very narrow population.
Two things can be considered when looking for legitimacy of any laboratory screening test.
First, is it a valid test? That is, has it been studied enough to determine the positive and negative predictive values in a target population, and are the risks of getting a false-positive, or false-negative test result minimal enough to generate confidence about the accuracy of the result?
According the website, low false-positive and false-negative rates of 1% on repeat determinations of 24-hour sera "have permitted successful screening in selected high-risk populations." I didn't verify this information in the references or other scientific resources. One thing for sure, "selected high-risk" means the test isn't indicated for large or general populations.
Second, is the test useful for making clinical decisions? "Useful" is a subjective term, and many new and existing cancer screening tests continue to be hotly contested in the medical community over their specific usefulness as determined by a potential cost or risk versus benefit ratio. In many cases, science isn't helpful in making this determination. For example, CEA and many tumor antigen tests can be widely accepted, but, per the science, are not very useful cancer screening tests for the vast majority of the population. Newer (and often proprietary) genetic (DNA) or stool antigen cancer screening tests really can't predict any degree of reduced morbidity associated with the cancer for which it is being used to screen. But, this doesn't mean these tests will never be useful for screening.
Experience has shown that, with a few exceptions, cancer screening tests for general populations are much more likely to lead to unnecessary follow-up procedures, that carry their own risks and costs to perform, than they are in identifying an unexpected, and immediately treatable condition.
dras
posted by nawledge at
9:49 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home