Early study found it had high accuracy, but experts say it won't replace colonoscopy anytime soon
Page 1 of 62
by Witchdoctor -
Obviously a uro. This is the problem with retrospective studies, by definition they look at the past. They are valuable only in evaluating what was done AT THE TIME. They can indicate new directions that need to be taken to IMPROVE results. However, this is dated, it is not new data at all, every retrospective study during this time period would show the same thing. The treatment has changed and improved since the cut off of the review and NEW prospective studies, some randomized, that the new Radiation treatments are much better, with fewer severe side effects and equal cure rates. And just like surgical failures , radiation failures can at times be salvaged.
We care about your feedback. Let us know how we can improve your CancerCompass experience.