No disrespect intended for the Author or the doctors quoted in this article. See the actual article in the link at the bottom.

Risk for incorrect but worrying findings rises 50 percent by the 14th test, study finds
Posted May 11, 2009

The more cancer screening tests you undergo, the higher your risk of having at least one false-positive result, researchers say.

False-positive results from routine cancer screening can cause undue worry and in some cases lead to unnecessary biopsies or treatments, experts note.

"after 14 tests total, over half of the people in our study had a false-positive result.

This is with current tests on the market! It has nothing to even do with RECAF. The current tests are are no good"Interesting Science but clinically a waste of time." Ask #14 in line he / she will tell you.
As you stated in a previous post,"Once the mamography comes up with positive results, they all stand equally until proven that some are false. Now, please, tell me you agree with that. OK? "

Why would this matter...Well if you are the 14th person in line. Theoretically you are doomed by the #14 because you are going to get a false positive according to the article. If you were always #14 on the list you will never be able to get rid of the false positive. You are doomed for life and will be subject to unnecessary biopsies until the day you die of some other means unrelated to cancer (according to your thinking on false positives) and therefore, we need to shut down the entire diagnostic industry according to your past posts.


No test is perfect, and you would expect to see it go up over time, but how rapidly the risk went up was surprising," said the study's lead author, Dr. Jennifer Croswell, acting director of the office of medical applications of research at the U.S. National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md.

This person is undoubtedly a good source and she says that no test is perfect. that would translate into the fact that nomatter if you ---- are told you do or don't have cancer, you cannot trust the result. Maybe you do...maybe you don't have cancer. Other tests will need to be performed regardless of the original test you had used. It was unreliable and so is the next follow up test you will receive to make sure of your diagnosis. WoW .. Now this is getting tough. Who can you trust to diagnose you?

"It's important to know ahead of time the risk of false-positives," she said. "Screenings have to be thought of like any other medical intervention and it's important to have the discussion about the risks and the benefits."

Hmmm. She is telling you before you ever get a cancer screening that there are risks...Are you again #14 or could you be number 28 today??? Doesn't matter because you will never really know if your test was the good one or the bad one?
Croswell and her colleagues reviewed data from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial, which included nearly 70,000 participants. The study volunteers were between the ages of 55 and 74, and were randomly selected to receive either normal care or more intensive screening.

---- why test 70,000 people when you really don't know if your studies are relying upon test #1 or test #14 or some multiple of the #14. 14, 28, 42 or 56 or so on. This tells me that the industry has no true way to tell you if you do or don't have cancer. The actual test doesn't matter it is just a function of what number you are in line for any test.

Those in the normal-care group were offered screening through their own private physicians as usual. Those in the intervention group were offered a baseline chest X-ray along with a yearly follow-up for two years for non-smokers and three years for smokers to check for lung cancer; a baseline flexible sigmoidoscopy to check for colorectal cancer, along with a three- or five-year follow-up; annual tests for cancer antigen 125 (CA-125) and a transvaginal ultrasound yearly to check for ovarian cancer in women; and an annual digital rectal exam to check for prostate cancer in men, as well as a prostate-specific antigen test.

These all have false positives as you know...and then there is the #14 position again. Which one can you really trust. And the more times you test, the more false positives come up. Wow...Recaf is looking better all of the time.

No information was included on mammography for women in either the intervention group or the usual care group.
That is a relief because the mammograms already have a tremendous false positive ratio not to mention being 14th in line.

For those who had 14 screening tests during the study period, the cumulative risk of having at least one false-positive was 60.4 percent for men and about 49 percent for women. The cumulative risk of having to undergo an invasive diagnostic procedure due to a false-positive test result was almost 29 percent for men and just over 22 percent for women.

Holy smokes....Shut down the industry ...why take any cancer test when these percentages of false positives are so staggering????

Croswell said the researchers weren't sure why the false-positive rate was higher for men, but it likely had something to do with the tests that were studied.

And to top it off, they do not even know why. Shouldn't this have been discussed in the trials. Where in the world was the FDA during these trials

"The fact is that screening tests aren't diagnostic," said Robert Smith, director of cancer screening for the American Cancer Society. "A certain risk of false positives and false negatives are to be expected. You can try to very aggressively reduce the false-positive rate, but then you also cut into cancer detection rates," he explained.

Hmmmm. Now that one hurt. The current Billion dollar tests are not even diagnostic. Wow again. I would again assume that this leader in the cancer diagnostics for the American Cancer Society would not be a scammer by any means. He speaks the truth for the current cancer tests on the market. Not including Recaf though because as you and --- mention...Recaf has not yet participated in these terrible trials yet.

"Most people place a higher priority on finding cancer early than preventing false-positives.

Hmmm that is not the stance that ---- or --- have used in past posts. I believe the words were "to many false positives means the tests are no good and will probably never make it to market. and "Interesting Science but clinically a waste of time."

I think the public often understands that false-positives happen," said Smith.

There it is again. A reputable person saying that," the public often understands that false-positives happen"

Maybe we shouldn't shut down the entire diagnostic industry after that comment???

But, he added, "We really need to do a better job of explaining to adults that there is a plus side and a down side to screening. We need to do a better job of letting people know what to expect, and that screening tests aren't perfect."

He said it again ----...Did you catch that one?
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/board.aspx?board_id=2475