this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2024
472 points (95.6% liked)

Asklemmy

43942 readers
512 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Biologically male procedures only. EDIT: If the two people who downvoted this question could explain their reasoning, I would be super interested. No judgements. This is a safe space!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 75 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

Do every test available for prevention and prophylaxis.
Get your general practitioner to do a full health check, ECG, EEG, cardiac ultrasound, a full blood panel, bloodpressure, pulmonary function, skin cancer prevention ect.
Schedule a gastroscopy and colonoscopy.
Check in with an urologist to get your prostate and urinary tract checked.
If you can, get a full body scan. Either PET or MRI.

Nearly every serious disease or health issue is easier prevented or treated when caught before it casues real issues.
Every cancer there is, has a better outcome and is easier treated when found early. Most of them are silent until very late in the game.

This is something I would recommend to anyone: Take advantage of every preventative messure or examination that is available to you!
There is no illness that you can detect too early.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 2 months ago

Until the insurance decides they're not covering it for some reason and OP is stuck with the bill.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The kicker is that I just moved here and don’t have a PCP (primary care physician) yet. AND my company is switching health plans next year, so I basically need to find someone who takes BOTH health plans.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Omfg, don't get a PET-scan 'just because'. You would literally have to be injected with radioactive particles. The other stuff, while not necessary, will atleast not kill you faster.

Last paragraph is also massively oversimplified. Getting a 'you have cancer'-speech and treatment for a superslow growing prostatecancer will fuck with your mind and body more than the cancer itself. That's why most health care systems advise against general PSA screening.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Just to provide some data on the radiation dose. It’s everyone’s own decision whether a ‘willy-nilly’ PET scan is worth it.

From the English Wikipedia:

FDG, which is now the standard radiotracer used for PET neuroimaging and cancer patient management, has an effective radiation dose of 14 mSv.

The amount of radiation in FDG is similar to the effective dose of spending one year in the American city of Denver, Colorado (12.4 mSv/year). […T]he whole body occupational dose limit for nuclear energy workers in the US is 50 mSv/year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron_emission_tomography#Safety

From the German Wikipedia:

Es ist bei einer Strahlendosis von 1 Sievert (Sv), der 100 Menschen ausgesetzt sind, mit 5 Todesfällen durch Strahlenkrebs zu rechnen […]. Man müsste also 100.000 PET-Untersuchungen durchführen, um 35 Todesfälle an Strahlenkrebs (nach einer mittleren Latenzzeit von etwa 15 Jahren für Leukämie und etwa 40 Jahren für solide Tumoren) zu verursachen, das heißt etwa eine auf 3000 Untersuchungen

If 100 people received a radiation dose of 1 Sievert (Sv), one would expect 5 deaths due to radiation-induced cancer […]. One would need 100,000 PET scans in order to cause 35 cancer deaths (after a median wait duration of 15 years for leucemia and 40 years for solid tumors), which is about 1 in 3000 scans.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positronen-Emissions-Tomographie#Strahlenexposition

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

I mean 1 in 3000 isn't a lot, but it's a lot more than nothing...

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

Guess I'll die