I am sure we are not alone in having PSA available 24/7. Hence results
are back in GP surgeries by the next morning (most often by 10 pm same
day).
I have not looked at the Daily Mail or Telegraph but the BBC site
compares the test to biopsy which makes the collection criteria more
comparable. However, I, too, suspect that there will be some resistance
from patients to specimen collection, even if the aspirate is replaced
by semen analysis. The problem remains that we need to have a way of
distinguishing aggressive disease that benefits from treatment. If the
Durham group do not have a test for this then it is merely replacing one
poor diagnostic test by another. Then its real value would lie in any
ability to replace (or at least reduce) biopsies.
Trevor Tickner,
Norwich
P.S. A copy of Documenta Geigy from 1956 quotes ranges for both seminal
and prostatic fluid citrate. These are 80-800 mg/100 ml and 0.48-2.68
g/100 ml respectively. The refences quoted were 1953 and 1945.
Presumably the new citrate test either has had or will have a reference
range established. I wonder if there are age-dependent ranges and, if
so, how many volunteers for aspiration were/will be required.
-----Original Message-----
From: Clinical biochemistry discussion list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Bullock
Sent: 19 May 2009 14:25
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: POCT - TAT and tat?
Some of today's papers have articles about a "three-minute prostate
cancer test" - though it's a simple test, measuring citrate by "shining
light through the fluid after adding a luminous metal", the sample is
obtained by aspiration biopsy - ouch! ("more invasive than a blood
test")
Perhaps more worrying is that the main selling point is speed, with the
Telegraph referring to "a long wait for results" and the Mail stating
that PSA results "take between one and two weeks to come back from the
laboratory". Where do they get these 'facts' from? - my wife's GP
surgery has a notice inviting patients to phone for results only 1 week
after specimen collection . . .
David
Dr David Bullock
Director, Birmingham Quality
P O Box 3909, Birmingham B15 2UE, U K
FAX: 0121 414 1179 [+44 121 414 1179]
------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/
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom
they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. This footer also confirms that this
email message has been scanned for the presence of computer viruses but this should not be relied upon as a guarantee that the contents are virus free.
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifies and with authority,
states them to be the views of the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. The information contained in this e-mail may be subject to public disclosure
under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Unless the information is legally exempt from disclosure, the confidentiality of this e-mail and your reply cannot be guaranteed
------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/
