New cheap test for RCC?
Just found this while browsing... A urine sample in certainly a fast and inexpensive way to test! I am always looking for the breakthrough that will allow cancers to be detected early and prolong prognosis for all patients! I'm not sure if this is an old idea, but the article is new so enjoy!
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-03-kidney-cancer-early-urine.html
- Jay
Comments
-
Would be great to haveicemantoo said:Sounds promising.
Where do our brothers and sisters line up for the test.
Icemantoo
Would be great to have something like this. for us women yearly visits to gynocologist are a must, for example. But there are not so many other easy tests to check for other cancers. Checking an urine sample once per year would be a cool and quick way to save lives. Otherwise - who gets ultrasounds or CT scans with no syMptoms? Noone. And when there are symptoms, sometimes it could be too late...
0 -
That would be great andAllochka said:Would be great to have
Would be great to have something like this. for us women yearly visits to gynocologist are a must, for example. But there are not so many other easy tests to check for other cancers. Checking an urine sample once per year would be a cool and quick way to save lives. Otherwise - who gets ultrasounds or CT scans with no syMptoms? Noone. And when there are symptoms, sometimes it could be too late...
That would be great and sounds very promising. My question is, if you have had kidney cancer, such as ourselves, if they tested our urine now would those proteins be elevated simply because we had RCC? Or would they be normal? And if elevated, would it be due to having had it previously or would it indicate that it returned? That wasn't explained in the article.
0 -
EarthshakingAPny said:That would be great and
That would be great and sounds very promising. My question is, if you have had kidney cancer, such as ourselves, if they tested our urine now would those proteins be elevated simply because we had RCC? Or would they be normal? And if elevated, would it be due to having had it previously or would it indicate that it returned? That wasn't explained in the article.
Same questions here. I wonder if this has value as a screening tool for those of us who have been lucky enough to have had it caught previously. I'll ask my urologist about it when I have my upcoming first-follow-up appointment.
I would guess that, like all new discoveries, if this does pan out it will be a while before it ends up in general use. But if everything is as the article states, it sounds potentially "earthshaking".
0 -
Daisy Dog?SFBob said:Earthshaking
Same questions here. I wonder if this has value as a screening tool for those of us who have been lucky enough to have had it caught previously. I'll ask my urologist about it when I have my upcoming first-follow-up appointment.
I would guess that, like all new discoveries, if this does pan out it will be a while before it ends up in general use. But if everything is as the article states, it sounds potentially "earthshaking".
Bob,
You look like a double for my Daisy Dog, Piper.
Icemantoo
0
Discussion Boards
- All Discussion Boards
- 6 CSN Information
- 6 Welcome to CSN
- 121.8K Cancer specific
- 2.8K Anal Cancer
- 446 Bladder Cancer
- 309 Bone Cancers
- 1.6K Brain Cancer
- 28.5K Breast Cancer
- 397 Childhood Cancers
- 27.9K Colorectal Cancer
- 4.6K Esophageal Cancer
- 1.2K Gynecological Cancers (other than ovarian and uterine)
- 13K Head and Neck Cancer
- 6.4K Kidney Cancer
- 671 Leukemia
- 792 Liver Cancer
- 4.1K Lung Cancer
- 5.1K Lymphoma (Hodgkin and Non-Hodgkin)
- 237 Multiple Myeloma
- 7.1K Ovarian Cancer
- 61 Pancreatic Cancer
- 487 Peritoneal Cancer
- 5.5K Prostate Cancer
- 1.2K Rare and Other Cancers
- 539 Sarcoma
- 730 Skin Cancer
- 653 Stomach Cancer
- 191 Testicular Cancer
- 1.5K Thyroid Cancer
- 5.8K Uterine/Endometrial Cancer
- 6.3K Lifestyle Discussion Boards