cancer check-ups

[Comandante]

I don't know if this has been discussed, looks like it hasn't, at least not from the searches that I did, but my question is why is it that cancer or tumor check ups are not encouraged as much as say, dental check-ups? I can't recall anyone dying from dental caries and yet most people go for check ups every now and then. In developed countries these are damn expensive too.

[Genecks]

It has to do with age, living arrangements, and probability.

 

As age increases, so does the chance of cancer.

As you eat more sugar and don't brush your teeth, the chance of a cavity increases.

 

The idea behind age and cancer is that throughout years, the cells divide and encounter environments that could cause mutations. But it is less likely for a mutation to occur than for a person to obtain a cavity; and that is where and why people visit dentists more than medical doctors.

[Callie]

To add to genecks post - to diagnose or check for cancer its a lot more difficult and would involve a lot more tests than a check of the mouth area and teeth.

 

There are programmes in place (in the UK at least, not sure about elsewhere in the world) which look for cancer in those most likely to develop it eg smear tests for women that are sexually active or over the age of ?25, breast screening for older women.

[big314mp]

The other thing is that a dental check up also incorporates a dental cleaning, which can help prevent problems. Whereas a cancer check up is just diagnostic in nature.

 

Basically, dental check ups actively prevent tooth decay, whereas cancer check ups don't prevent cancer.

[tvp45]

Many of us have regular cancer checks. I get an annual PSA and an occult blood screen. I get a colonoscopy every five years. I am checked by a dermatologist occasionally when a mole changes. I have fairly frequent CBCs that would show evidence of blood cancer. I get a chest x-ray about every ten years. My wife has a pap smear and mammogram annually.

 

The questions for each of these are:

Does early detection significantly improve the outcome?

Is the test cost effective?

 

My health insurance carrier and primary physician encourage the above tests on the basis of a "yes" answer to both the questions.

[Psycho]

Basically, dental check ups actively prevent tooth decay, whereas cancer check ups don't prevent cancer.

They might prevent death though.

 

I wouldn't say cancer was the best example of for this, there are better ones such as high blood pressure which people are regularly checked for.

 

The difference between going to the dentist is that your teeth are just inorganic enamel until you get down the the root, you have to get through a lot of it with little pain and by the time you realise the damage is done, where as with many other illnesses even to the extent of the common cold, if it is there you know about it.

[iNow]

Although, it has been shown that dogs can detect cancer by smelling the breath of a patient, hence, a dental checkup may work wonders.

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/01/0112_060112_dog_cancer.html

[big314mp]

Although, it has been shown that dogs can detect cancer by smelling the breath of a patient, hence, a dental checkup may work wonders.

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/01/0112_060112_dog_cancer.html

 

Last I checked, my dentist wasn't furry

 

Perhaps the sheer number of cancers out there is part of the issue. If the tech in iNow's article is actually put into practice, then lots of cancers could be easily screened for.

 

Callie already pointed out that patients are tested for breast cancer already. I'll add skin, prostate, colon, and testicular to that list. So in a sense, we already implement this to an extent.

[Comandante]

I see, that pretty much all makes sense, but I probably didn't ask the correct question.

 

What I wanted to point out is that those 7 million (or more) deaths due to cancer every year could probably be halved in number (if not even more reduced) if the cancer was detected early. The question then becomes would the government be willing to sponsor those checks, if not in full at least partially, for say, kids at schools, those employed and so on..? I think that a PET scan would be all that's needed but that kind of check is extremely expensive. How much would this cost the government and can we really compare the amount of money to the number of lives saved? Why not sponsor this from tax money? I'm not very good with economics, perhaps someone can enlighten the area.

[Genecks]

Each nation's government system is different.

Would it be a good idea for the government to sponsor checkups?

Well, if you suspect that half of the lives would be saved, then perhaps so.

 

One would have to reference epidemiology and statistics of cancer patients.

Perhaps the statistics of most importance would have to do with contributing memebers of society.

How many important members of society have died from cancer and could have it prevented from regular checkups?

I'd be a tyrant and consider medical staff and anyone in a medicine-related field to be important.

 

I will assume that any decent person with insurance and a respectable job would have a decent health care plan. Thus, at such a point, to get a person to have a checkup, the government would have to force the person to have a checkup.

 

But for things to be free for low-income persons it would cost the government a lot of money. Therefore, the government would expect that money back. And that money back is often obtained through taxes. Therefore, one would have to question the return and the cost of support.

 

If people's lives are saved, how much return is created?

In order to save people's lives, how much money is needed to support such a national cancer plan?

 

This thread is becoming more political, though. So, I will stop here.

Edited November 7, 2008 by Genecks

[Comandante]

It seems that science inevitably involves politics from global perspective anyway, especially in health field. I guess what I wanted to find out was if the idea was sound, if there were no other hurdles for any such plans except for the financing.

[MedGen]

It seems that science inevitably involves politics from global perspective anyway, especially in health field. I guess what I wanted to find out was if the idea was sound, if there were no other hurdles for any such plans except for the financing.

 

I wouldn't say the actual science involves politics (not counting funding here), but more the application of scientific discoveries on a large scale. For instance if a biomarker and test were developed that could detect cancers (any type) at the neoplasia stage with 99% efficiency, but cost £8000 ($12000) per person to implement, would the government subsidise or pay for it?

[big314mp]

I think you also need to narrow down what type of cancers are going to be looked for. All of them? Just the most common?

 

I think it would work best if you look for the most common, given the demographic. Basically, those who are "at risk" of some cancers should be monitored carefully.

[Realitycheck]

You can get a full-body MRI scan done with contrast and it will show most cancers, all but the least dangerous. The contrast detects cells that proliferate faster than normal, consuming the sugar in the contrast faster than normal cells.

 

Then again, there's no guarantee that what shows up is actually cancer. There are a lot of things to consider. There is a lot more to it than I know.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050204115048.htm

 

For the study, the researchers conducted 298 full-body MRI screenings of healthy patients. The screenings revealed that 21% of the study group exhibited signs of atherosclerotic disease and 12% had peripheral vascular disease. Twelve colon polyps, nine pulmonary lesions, two cerebral infarctions and one myocardial infarction were also discovered. In addition, 29% of the examinations revealed relevant additional findings in nontargeted organs.

Edited November 10, 2008 by agentchange