Prostate

That's the response that I got from several GP's and practice managers both when I lived in Hampshire and here in Aberdeenshire.

An accurate, non intrusive test would be good.

Clearly there are conflicting thoughts here - I agree non-invasive would be good although you chaps might keep in mind that the smear tests we go through are pretty unpleasant not to mention mammography!  I am personally certain that prevention is a better and safer option than hoping for a cure too far down the track. 

"If in doubt - check it out" might be a good watchword. 

The biopsy proceedure involves sticking a fairly large device up your bum and waggling it into position.  It then fires a cluster of needles through the wall of your intestine, the intervening tissue and into the prostate, snapping back with a collection of tissue samples for analysis.

Clinical problem is that a tumour can be between needle positions and missed giving a false negative. Also, needles can rupture blood vessels and sperm duct as there is no way to target them, and there are all these holes in a far from sterile area to heal - or not as the case may be.

I think I prefer the young female doctor test myself.

All I can say is to repeat that my brother would still be harbouring cancer if he hadn't insisted on the PSA and the Biopsy - and I am prietty sure he didn't have any symptoms prior to his annual check up and 66 isn't a great age. 

I Think  I  prefer  the  young  female  doctor  test  myself 

Navigateur, 

Back  a  little  earlier  this  century  when  some  kind

medics  were  doing  regular  Flexi-Sigs, colonoscopies

or  similar  on  yours  truly,  I,  in  my  ignorance,  thought 

when  they  used  the   term  "Digital  Tests",  they  were 

just  going  to  use  a  different  type  of  camera  

I have to say Brian that, as the pain of the kydney stone was lapsing by then (and if you've ever had one, you'll know that the pain is considerable) the intervention by the young lady doctor was considered to be a not-unpleasant interlude. 

I have to say Brian that, as the pain of the kydney stone was lapsing by then (and if you've ever had one, you'll know that the pain is considerable) the intervention by the young lady doctor was considered to be a not-unpleasant interlude. 

Far too much information.

A friend of mine had a very painful kidney stone. He was having to get up during the night to use the loo, so in the evenings he reduced his fluid intake, had his supper drink earlier to try and prevent having disturbed nights. The Dr said that because he was drinking less, his urine was stronger, and that probably caused the stone. The Dr's opinion was it was better to get up in the night, rather than getting a stone. As for the PSA test, it can be missleading.

The PSA test can also be a life saver.  As for limiting fluid intake it is almost always a mistake to cut down.