The Internet Medical Journal ISSN 1093-7935

Community Forum | Search | Radio | Journal Club CME | About Medjournal.Com

Bookmark This Page | Recommend Us! | Contact | Press Releases | Privacy Statement

translate this page

Pearls

Archives

Search

News Links

$name[$x]
\n"; } $whichone=rand(0,$i); echo "
** Random Link **
\n"; ?>

Monday, December 09, 2002

Screening for Colon Cancer $BlogItemSubject"; $newslink[$countera]="http://www.medjournal.com/blog/archives/2002_12_01_cancerarchive.php#90032710"; ?>
This Italian study looked at the effect of screening adults at 60 years of age for colon cancer using sigmoidoscopy. Of the 9911 patients examined, 54 were found to have colorectal cancer. Comment: there is some controversy in screening for colon cancer. My opinion is that actual visualization is preferrable to just screening the stool for occult blood. [ Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 94, No. 23, 1763-1772, December 4, 2002 ] posted at 3:54 PM by Tom Heston, MD

Sunday, October 13, 2002

Breast Self-Examination Does Not Improve Cancer Survival in China $BlogItemSubject"; $newslink[$countera]="http://www.medjournal.com/blog/archives/2002_10_01_cancerarchive.php#85558298"; ?>
A large, 10-year study from China found that breast self-examination did not improve survival from breast cancer. A total of 266,064 women participated in the study. The authors hypothesize that in countries where mammography is readily available, breast self-examination may be of benefit, but in developing countries it does not increase breast cancer survival. [ BMJ 2002;325:793 ( 12 October ) ] posted at 6:58 PM by Tom Heston, MD

Monday, September 23, 2002

Tamoxifen Reduces Breast Cancer Rates in High Risk Women $BlogItemSubject"; $newslink[$countera]="http://www.medjournal.com/blog/archives/2002_09_01_cancerarchive.php#85483983"; ?>
This report on the international breast cancer intervention study notes that in healthy women at high risk for developing breast cancer, tamoxifen reduces their risk by a third over a period of four years. Comment: this is a dramatic difference in breast cancer rates over a short period of time (4 years). A similar pharmaceutical, raloxifene (Evista) is also promising in terms of both osteoporosis treatment and breast cancer reduction. [ BMJ 2002;325:613 ( 21 September ) ] posted at 6:52 PM by Tom Heston, MD

Saturday, September 14, 2002

Surgery Does Not Increase Survival in Prostate Cancer $BlogItemSubject"; $newslink[$countera]="http://www.medjournal.com/blog/archives/2002_09_01_cancerarchive.php#85450639"; ?>
This study found that in 695 men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer, surgery (radical prostatectomy) did not lead to improved survival compared with doing nothing ("watchful waiting"). [ NEJM Volume 347:781-789 September 12, 2002 Number 11 ] posted at 1:58 PM by Tom Heston, MD

Friday, September 06, 2002

Canadian Breast Screening Study: Mammograms Not Beneficial $BlogItemSubject"; $newslink[$countera]="http://www.medjournal.com/blog/archives/2002_09_01_cancerarchive.php#85423189"; ?>
This Canadian study of 50 430 women aged 40 to 49 years old found that screening with annual mammography did not decrease the mortality from breast cancer compared with screening using breast examination alone. Comment: using chi-square analysis, this study shows that those receiving mammography had a statistically significant increase in the rate of breast cancer (including both invasive and in-situ) compared with those being screened with breast examination alone. The standard response is that mammography simply discovers more cancer. Could it be that mammography has some negative side-effects? This whole controversy over mammography is not over by any means. Screening is essential, but what is the best way to screen? [ Annals of Internal Medicine, 3 September 2002 Volume 137 Number 5 (Part 1) ] posted at 5:04 PM by Tom Heston, MD

click here for more medical news and commentary...

We subscribe to the HONcode code of conduct for medical and health websites

The information contained on all web pages maintained by Medjournal.Com is strictly editorial. It constitutes medical opinion, NOT ADVICE. Use common sense by consulting with your doctor before making any lifestyle changes or other medical decisions based on the content of these web pages. Medjournal.Com and the Internet Medical Journal shall not be held liable for any errors in content, advertising, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.

© 1997-2002 by Medjournal.Com, Inc. and The Internet Medical Journal ISSN 1093-7935. All international rights reserved. This copyright applies to the entire domain medjournal.com We use with permission and recommend Spiderweb Links, LinksToYou, Blogger Pro, Med journal.com, TradeMyPage.com, StartPageAds.com, Heston.com, StayAtHomeMom.com, SilverValley.Org, ACOMS.org, Medjournal.org, Shaklee Distributor, HitsOverload.com.

Click Here to view our privacy statement.

The Internet Medical Journal

Dedicated to Your Good Health!