Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Published 8 October 2009, doi:10.1136/bmj.b4125
Cite this as: BMJ 2009;339:b4125
Fiona Godlee, editor, BMJ
fgodlee@bmj.com
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
Last weeks BMJ cast yet further doubt on prostate specific antigen as a screening tool for prostate cancer (2009;339:b3572, b3537, b3601), and this week we warm to the theme of tumour markers and their limitations. The Clinical Review (doi:10.1136/bmj.b3527) and the Practice article on rational testing (doi:10.1136/bmj.b3111) make clear that tumour markers are a mixed bag, not to be used in screening, unhelpful for diagnosis in patients with non-specific symptoms, and best reserved for monitoring once a diagnosis has been made. Unfocused requests and inappropriate use of tumour markers cost health services around the world large sums of money. They provide false reassurance in some cases and cause unnecessary anxiety, investigations, and treatment in others.
The authors stress that in the right hands and in some conditions—notably germ cell tumours—tumour markers have an important role. And as options for cancer treatment improve, the next generation of
![]()
CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Technorati What's this?
Read all Rapid Responses