[AlaskaAngel]

Thanks, Suzan! I'd like to think that someone who has some authority to make the test available routinely in that circumstance is at least as smart as we are.... but so far I dunno...

One reason in particular that I think they are not thinking as clearly about that question is that possibly they are basing their opinion about the unreliability of the testing upon patients whose results are most often quite likely to be less reliable due to most of them having usually had recent chemotherapy prior to the use of the those tests. I know my results for the CA 15-3 or CA 27.29 were higher due to chemotherapy and it wasn't until a while after the chemo cleared before the tests settled down to steady low results.

Thus I think those tests might be a lot more reliable than they realize, particularly for undiagnosed patients and treatment-naive patients and patients who are far out from treatment -- like me.

A.A.

P.S. It seems to me they have been thinking about use of it only after the horse has gotten out of the barn and they haven't given any real thought to using it preventatively.

P.P.S. Not only that, but it could potentially reduce the amount of rads we get over time, if it proves to be as reliable as mammos. (When one is 10 years out, it starts to add up.....)