The Need To Detect Cancer Early: Why Conventional Cancer Tests Are Not the Answer

One of the main reasons that cancer is such a costly disease—both in terms of human suffering and in the financial cost involved in treating it—is because by and large it is not detected early enough.

When it comes to early detection, conventional medicine is well behind alternative cancer approaches. That’s because conventional diagnostic cancer tests look only for signs of cancer tumors. This is true whether the screening methods are measuring cancer markers or looking for signs of tumors directly, such as through CT scans, MRIs, x-rays, etc.

Most people do not realize that it takes years, and in some cases even decades before cancer develops into a visible tumor that conventional screening can detect. By then, the challenge of treating cancer successfully is more difficult and costly. That’s because, during all of the time that tumors are not detectable by conventional means, cancer is still active in the body.

Since the conventional cancer establishment often refers to its approach to cancer as a “war,” think of detection this way:

In war, doesn’t it make sense to be aware of your enemy before he can come ashore and strike, rather than to wait for years while he stealthily infiltrates your defenses before he strikes in full force? Obviously your chances of defeating your enemy are much greater if you can stop him in his tracks before he has a chance to leave his homeland. Similarly, alternative and integrative cancer physicians recognize that the earliest possible detection of cancer greatly increases the chances of their patients’ long-term recovery and survival. Just as importantly, early detection makes treating cancer far less costly, compared to when it’s detected later on.

Limitations of Conventional Cancer Tests


Conventional cancer tests have a number of limitations, starting with the fact that, as I said, cancer must have developed into a tumor before they can successfully detect it. (For the purposes of this article, I am referring here to “solid state” cancers, meaning those for which tumor formation is involved. Nearly all types of cancer fall into this category, with two notable exceptions: leukemias and lymphomas, such as Hodgkin’s disease and non-Hodgkins lymphoma.) As mentioned, this means that cancer has to be present in the body for a long time before conventional cancer tests can detect it. And even then, small tumors can be missed by such tests, escaping detection until they grow larger, by which time cancer has progressed even further.

In addition, as I’ve written about in the past, a number of conventional cancer tests, such as x-rays and CT scans, are capable of causing cancer themselves due to the radiation they emit when patients are tested.

For this reason, conventional cancer specialists also rely on cancer markers to screen patients for cancer. A cancer marker refers to any of a variety of blood tests that measure the level of a protein material or other chemical that is produced by cancer cells. Marker levels become elevated in the presence of a cancerous tumor.

There are different cancer markers for different kinds of cancer. For example, the marker CEA (carcino-embryonic antigen) is used to screen for colon cancer, while CA 15-3 or CA 27-29 are used to screen for breast cancer. Other common cancer markers are CA 125, used to screen for ovarian cancer, and the PSA (prostate-specific antigen) test for men, which until recently was commonly relied upon by conventional physicians to screen for prostate cancer. (Recent research has shown that the PSA test may not be an accurate indicator of prostate cancer, to the points where its developer has now called on physicians to stop relying upon it for this purpose. The PSA test continues to be an accurate indicator for enlargement of the prostate gland or BPH.)

The most obvious limitation of conventional cancer marker tests is the fact that each of them can only be used to screen for one particular type of cancer. This means, for example, that a woman screened for breast cancer may be given a clean bill of health if her cancer markers show a low score all the while that she may have colon or another type of cancer that the markers cannot screen for.

Nor is that the only problem. Cancer markers can produce inaccurate results known as false positives and false negatives. A false positive results in patients being told they have cancer when in fact they don’t, while a false negative can result in people with cancer being told they are cancer-free. Obviously, either type of false reading is not a good outcome.

False positive and false negative outcomes from cancer marker tests are related to two statistical measures that determine a screening test’s usefulness. These measures are known as sensitivity and specificity. Sensitivity refers to the probability that a test will show a positive result when cancer actually exists, while specificity refers to the probability that a negative test result will occur when no cancer exists. A test that has high sensitivity and high specificity is far more useful than tests for which one or both of these measures are lower. Unfortunately, too many conventional cancer marker tests fall into this latter category. They include the PSA test, as well as the CA 27-29 and CEA tests, among others.

False negative outcomes are also quite high with the traditional PAP smear test, which is used to screen for cancer of the cervix. This test examines stained cells from the mucous membrane of the cervix for signs of precancerous changes. Pre-cancer of the cervix is called cervical dysplasia. When detected early enough, it is almost always reversible, but once it progresses into malignancy and becomes invasive it is much more difficult to treat. It is estimated that a full one-third of women who die from cervical cancer do so because it was not accurately detected soon enough for successful treatment to begin.

Given all of the above, you are probably wishing that there were accurate and noninvasive tests that could screen for cancer in its earliest stages, far ahead of the conventional diagnostic tests I’ve mentioned, that could also screen for multiple types of cancer at once, instead of patients needing to have multiple types of tests to know whether or not cancer is present in their bodies.

Fortunately these types of tests do exist, and more and more alternative physicians are now making use of them even though both tests are still ignored by their conventional counterparts. In future articles I will tell you about two of these tests, one from Germany and one that is available right here in the United States, and I will also let you know how you can obtain them. Stay tuned.

Until then, remember this: When it comes to cancer, prevention is your best option, followed by the earliest possible detection methods.