The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
Non-invasive is well, listen to your patient. That's like 99% accurate. Do a pelvic ultrasound. Unfortunately, if you see it on pelvic ultrasound, it's already advanced disease. Or do a pelvic MRI because MRI can actually with a experienced radiologist, they can look at these specially infiltrating lesions, they can see those on MRI.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
Initial measurements we’re doing: + trans vaginal ultrasound + pelvic MRI w and w/o contrast + hormonal labs All during the early part of her cycle to get the clearest picture.