RE: and related misdiagnoses

May 10, 2006

I think you are going to hear from the troops on this one. Please put your mind at ease. While I have not read the article (but intend to), either you misinterpreted something (as you suggested), or its just plain wrong. I'm glad you brought this up so that we can clear the air on this one.

In a message dated 5/10/2006 1:59:21 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, akittell@... writes:

I just read portions of the article on the site entitled "Achalasia and related misdiagnoses", and frankly I wish I hadn't read it. From what I gather, according to this article, achalasia is actually caused by obstruction and that sometimes this obstruction is a cancerous tumor that often is not even detectable by endoscoppy. So should we take this to mean that any any given point in time our swallowing disorders/achalasia may be caused by a cancerous tumor that even our doctors haven't been able to discover by endoscope. Am I interpreting this article correctly and has anyone else read it recently. It certainly doesn't put ones' fears of the possiblity of cancer to rest. Any thoughts on this???

May 10, 2006

I always fear this in the future!

in Indiana

On my way to Cleveland tomorrow.

From:

achalasia [mailto:achalasia ] On Behalf Of Anita Kittell

Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 1:56

PM

achalasia

Subject:

" achalasia and related misdiagnoses "

I justread portions of

the article on the site entitled " Achalasia and

related misdiagnoses " , and frankly I wish I hadn't read it.

From what

I gather, according to this article, achalasia is actually caused by

obstruction and that sometimes this obstruction is a cancerous tumor

that often is not even detectable by endoscoppy. So should we take

this to mean that any any given point in time our swallowing

disorders/achalasia may be caused by a cancerous tumor that even our

doctors haven't been able to discover by endoscope. Am I interpreting

this article correctly and has anyone else read it recently. It

certainly doesn't put ones' fears of the possiblity of cancer to rest.

Any thoughts on this???

May 10, 2006

Dear Anita,

You poor little soul. I suspect that there is something wrong in that sentence- "A is caused by obstruction and sometimes......". I think the word that should have been used is Dysphagia (inability to swallow food down into the stomach). Sometimes a patient who cannot get food into the stomach will be diagnosed with a cancerous tumour. Yes, sometimes people get this, but two things - Achalasia is termed "idiopathic" ,which means that the cause is unknown, and also if you have been diagnosed with A, then cancer will have been ruled out. When you have an endoscopy test, a biopsy is taken to check on this, whether it is as an original investigation, or when they are keeping an eye on you in later years.

I hope this information is totally accurate, as I know how important this is to you and would be glad of some more back up on the facts. But stop worrying Darling. The troops are here to help you.

Love from Ann in England xxx>> I justread portions of the article on the site entitled "Achalasia and > related misdiagnoses", and frankly I wish I hadn't read it. From what > I gather, according to this article, achalasia is actually caused by > obstruction and that sometimes this obstruction is a cancerous tumor > that often is not even detectable by endoscoppy. So should we take > this to mean that any any given point in time our swallowing > disorders/achalasia may be caused by a cancerous tumor that even our > doctors haven't been able to discover by endoscope. Am I interpreting > this article correctly and has anyone else read it recently. It > certainly doesn't put ones' fears of the possiblity of cancer to rest.> Any thoughts on this???>

May 10, 2006

I agree with and Anite. I have not read the article but my

understanding is that cancer of the E usually progresses rather

quickly. So, if you have had symptoms for awhile (especially for

more than a year or so) and have had an endooscopy after having

symptoms for awhile, your doctor most likely would have seen the

cancer (and done a biopsy) if you had it.

I had two biopsies because I had a nodule near the junction with my

stomach. They were both negative (not cancer), and just inflammed

tissue (due to food getting stuck there).

Sometimes people have cancer which causes secondary achalasia but

doctors check for this when they do endocscopies and barium swallows.

Vicki

> >

> > I justread portions of the article on the site

entitled " Achalasia and

> > related misdiagnoses " , and frankly I wish I hadn't read it. From

what

> > I gather, according to this article, achalasia is actually

caused by

> > obstruction and that sometimes this obstruction is a cancerous

tumor

> > that often is not even detectable by endoscoppy. So should we

take

> > this to mean that any any given point in time our swallowing

> > disorders/achalasia may be caused by a cancerous tumor that even

our

> > doctors haven't been able to discover by endoscope. Am I

interpreting

> > this article correctly and has anyone else read it recently. It

> > certainly doesn't put ones' fears of the possiblity of cancer to

rest.

> > Any thoughts on this???

> >

>

May 10, 2006

>Hi. Tom had a biopsey and was all clear with no signs of cancer or

reflux.

> I justread portions of the article on the site entitled " Achalasia

and

> related misdiagnoses " , and frankly I wish I hadn't read it. From

what

> I gather, according to this article, achalasia is actually caused by

> obstruction and that sometimes this obstruction is a cancerous tumor

> that often is not even detectable by endoscoppy. So should we take

> this to mean that any any given point in time our swallowing

> disorders/achalasia may be caused by a cancerous tumor that even our

> doctors haven't been able to discover by endoscope. Am I

interpreting

> this article correctly and has anyone else read it recently. It

> certainly doesn't put ones' fears of the possiblity of cancer to

rest.

> Any thoughts on this???

>

May 10, 2006

Thanks to all who responded by my inquiry. I do feel much better now.

And, yes, I've had swallowing problems for almost four years now, with

three endoscopes in almost as many years and with biopsies on each

one, all of which were negative, and even my doc has said in the past

that with all the negative scopes, he's really not worried about

cancer in my case. Of course, as I'm sure you all know, anytime you

have symptoms that persist, you still worry.

> >Hi. Tom had a biopsey and was all clear with no signs of cancer or

> reflux.

>

> > I justread portions of the article on the site entitled " Achalasia

> and

> > related misdiagnoses " , and frankly I wish I hadn't read it. From

> what

> > I gather, according to this article, achalasia is actually caused by

> > obstruction and that sometimes this obstruction is a cancerous tumor

> > that often is not even detectable by endoscoppy. So should we take

> > this to mean that any any given point in time our swallowing

> > disorders/achalasia may be caused by a cancerous tumor that even our

> > doctors haven't been able to discover by endoscope. Am I

> interpreting

> > this article correctly and has anyone else read it recently. It

> > certainly doesn't put ones' fears of the possiblity of cancer to

> rest.

> > Any thoughts on this???

> >

>

May 10, 2006

Anita,

When the local GI was unsure of the cause of the dysphagia, he

ordered a CT scan for . I would think that with the barium

swallow and/or CT scan, they could rule out some kind of tumor outside

the E causing dysphagia. I think Ann did a great job of explaining

that it would be secondary A if it was caused by a tumor. I'm sure

Dr. N has ruled that out for you already. Please don't let that

article worry you!

in Michigan

>

> I justread portions of the article on the site entitled " Achalasia and

> related misdiagnoses " , and frankly I wish I hadn't read it. From what

> I gather, according to this article, achalasia is actually caused by

> obstruction and that sometimes this obstruction is a cancerous tumor

> that often is not even detectable by endoscoppy. So should we take

> this to mean that any any given point in time our swallowing

> disorders/achalasia may be caused by a cancerous tumor that even our

> doctors haven't been able to discover by endoscope. Am I interpreting

> this article correctly and has anyone else read it recently. It

> certainly doesn't put ones' fears of the possiblity of cancer to rest.

> Any thoughts on this???

>

May 11, 2006

It is probably more likely that cancer can be caused from having the

acid levels wrong in the E from A etc. But from what I have seen

cancer is a lesser problem to A but to worse for other diseases like

Barretts. This article sounds out of line. To date we really don't

exactly know what the main cause of A is.

>

> I think you are going to hear from the troops on this one. Please

put your

> mind at ease. While I have not read the article (but intend to),

either you

> misinterpreted something (as you suggested), or its just plain

wrong. I'm

> glad you brought this up so that we can clear the air on this

one.

>

> In a message dated 5/10/2006 1:59:21 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

> akittell@... writes:

>

> I just read portions of the article on the site

entitled " Achalasia and

> related misdiagnoses " , and frankly I wish I hadn't read it. From

what I

> gather, according to this article, achalasia is actually caused by

obstruction

> and that sometimes this obstruction is a cancerous tumor that often

is not

> even detectable by endoscoppy. So should we take this to mean that

any any

> given point in time our swallowing disorders/achalasia may be

caused by a

> cancerous tumor that even our doctors haven't been able to discover

by endoscope.

> Am I interpreting

> this article correctly and has anyone else read it recently. It

certainly

> doesn't put ones' fears of the possiblity of cancer to rest. Any

thoughts on

> this???

>

May 11, 2006

Secondary achalasia due to tumor is ruled out by endoscope -- if you have had an

endoscope

and none were found, it is not a worry.

Peggy