|
Post by Denise Madden on Mar 12, 2007 17:30:15 GMT -5
???Has any one got blood test back and looks normal but in severe pelvic pain,back pain-led-groin and nothing showed up on blood work even had the CA125
|
|
|
Post by ouchy on Mar 12, 2007 17:54:51 GMT -5
Well, a normal CA125 is a good indication that you don't have cancer!
All my blood tests were normal, and I've had endo diagnosed via lap 2 times now. Sometimes the CA125 will be slightly elevated w/ endo--but not always.
|
|
|
Post by AussieBird on Mar 12, 2007 18:13:27 GMT -5
All my GPs have ever done for me is send me off for blood tests that come back normal! Atleast ask for an ultrasound Hope you get it sorted!
|
|
|
Post by kb on Mar 13, 2007 1:01:14 GMT -5
Blood tests, pft.
Get fed up with them, gotta have em done, but man i have no expectations that anything will be found anymore, i think ive been tested for everything under the sun, always normal.
|
|
trish
Full Member
Posts: 157
|
Post by trish on Mar 13, 2007 8:47:48 GMT -5
According to mine...I am completely healthy. My CA125, Ct scan, USound and even my lap, all wonderful and healthy.
I still have groin pain that shoots down my left leg. I also have sharp pains by my kidney's and I am healthy as a horse....but feel like death!!!!
|
|
|
Post by akcheryl on Mar 13, 2007 9:58:17 GMT -5
Apparently, 20% of ovarian cancers don't even cause elevated CA-125. It's really not a good test because of all the false positives and false negatives.
Did your Dr. say what your CA-125 is? Anything over 35 is abnormal, but mine was 137 and not a concern (over 200 indicates ovarian cancer). My level indicated endo. I'm just wondering if your Dr. said your CA-125 is fine, but really meant that it wasn't high enough to indicate cancer?
|
|
|
Post by ouchy on Mar 20, 2007 13:02:19 GMT -5
well not true, my sister had cancer in her uterus and had a normal CA125 so it isnt true, it doesnt help , only if i think it has gone so bad This was actually NOT part of my quote. It was formatted (probably accidentally) to look like it was, however, in the above post. <--In response to post #6.
|
|