This article appeared in this weeks BMJ.
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/325/7370/946
Some of the points raised are interesting. Why did they come to the
assumption in the first place that it was a malignancy despite a having
normal calcium. They seem to be using Ca125 and others as screening tools.
The presence of the ascites is well known to be a cause of a raised Ca125.
Perhaps a topic for discussion.
Dr Tim Lang
Senior Biochemist
Department of Clinical Biochemistry
Level 4
John Radcliffe Hospital
Headington
Oxford
OX3 9DU
01865 741166 Ex 20335
01865 220348 (Fax)
[log in to unmask]
------ACB discussion List Information--------
This is an open discussion list for the academic and clinical
community working in clinical biochemistry.
Please note, archived messages are public and can be viewed
via the internet. Views expressed are those of the individual and
they are responsible for all message content.
ACB Web Site
http://www.acb.org.uk
List Archives
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/ACB-CLIN-CHEM-GEN.html
List Instructions (How to leave etc.)
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/
|