BioCurex, Inc.(fka BOCX)

[HALF FULL GLASS]

Gold, You posted this article stating that 1 out of a thousand false positive rate is bad....So we should then continue to use the mammogram since it only has the following false positive rate:

Another good call Gold...Shoot at the markers and prop up the mammogram... I am still waiting on your perfect 100% foolproof test you continue to promote! Can't wait to see it on the market!!! What was the name of that one?

Gold posted,"For example, if a tumor marker for breast cancer has a diagnostic specificity of 99 percent, and the test is used in a population of 100,000 women, 1 percent, or 1,000 women, would be incorrectly judged positive for breast cancer. It is for this reason that circulating tumor markers are not used for screening purposes in a large, asymptomatic population."

Mammograms miss 20% or 1 of the the 5 cancers. verses Recaf's miss of 1 out of 5 cancers

Mammagram falsely stated women had breast cancer at a 49% rate.
This (False positive rate) = 500 women out of 1000 verses Recaf's 50 false positives.


Results A total of 9762 screening mammograms and 10,905 screening clinical breast examinations were performed, for a median of 4 mammograms and 5 clinical breast examinations per woman over the 10-year period. Of the women who were screened The estimated cumulative risk of a false positive result was 49.1 percent. The false positive tests led to 870 outpatient appointments, 539 diagnostic mammograms, 186 ultrasound examinations, 188 biopsies, and 1 hospitalization. We estimate that among women who do not have breast cancer, 18.6 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 9.8 to 41.2 percent) will undergo a biopsy after 10 mammograms, and 6.2 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 3.7 to 11.2 percent) after 10 clinical breast examinations. For every $100 spent for screening, an additional $33 was spent to evaluate the false positive results.

Conclusions Over 10 years, one third of the women screened had abnormal test results requiring additional evaluation, even though no breast cancer was present. Techniques are needed to decrease false positive results while maintaining high sensitivity. Physicians should educate women about the risk of a false positive result of a screening test for breast cancer.

Radiation exposure—Mammograms (as well as dental x-rays and other routine x-rays) use very small doses of radiation. The risk of any harm is very slight, but repeated x-rays could cause problems. The benefits nearly always outweigh the risk. Women should talk with their health care provider about the need for each x-ray. They should also ask about shielding to protect parts of the body that are not in the picture. In addition, they should always let their health care provider and the technician know if there is any possibility that they are pregnant.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/338/16/1089



------------------------------------------------------------------
No screening test is perfect.

Gold, Please read this multiple times.

To many people, screening instinctively seems like an appropriate thing to do, because catching something earlier seems better. However, no screening test is perfect. There will always be the problems with incorrect results and other issues


World Health Organization — Principles of Screening
World Health Organization guidelines were published in 1968, but are still applicable today.

The condition should be an important health problem.
There should be a treatment for the condition.
Facilities for diagnosis and treatment should be available.
There should be a latent stage of the disease.
There should be a test or examination for the condition.
The test should be acceptable to the population.
The natural history of the disease should be adequately understood.
There should be an agreed policy on who to treat.
The total cost of finding a case should be economically balanced in relation to medical expenditure as a whole.
Case-finding should be a continuous process, not just a "once and for all" project.