New study questions the effectiveness of colonoscopies

[Vince]

The study marks the first time colonoscopies have been compared head-to-head to no cancer screening in a randomized trial. The study found only meager benefits for the group of people invited to get the procedure: an 18% lower risk of getting colorectal cancer, and no significant reduction in the risk of cancer death. It was published Sunday in The New England Journal of Medicine.

New study examines the effectiveness of colonoscopies

A "landmark" study suggests the benefits of colonoscopies for cancer screening may be overestimated.

amp-cnn-com.cdn.ampproject.org

 

[Deleted member 16042]

How timely, I get one at 2:30 PM today.

How do you feel about this @Vince in lieu of your wife's cancer?

 

[Vince]

How timely, I get one at 2:30 PM today.

How do you feel about this @Vince in lieu of your wife's cancer?

If they would have caught her tumor 4 1/2 years ago. Like they were supposed to. She would not have to surgery and the after effects of chemo.

My wife has colon cancer.

I’ve been super busy. On Monday my wife was diagnosed with colon cancer. The reason she had a colonoscopy, her iron has been very low. They also went down her throat and checked for any issues. We met with the surgeon yesterday and he said it looks contained. She had interferon treatment...

www.excelmale.com

 

[Guided_by_Voices]

My quick reading of this suggests the real-world benefits may be higher than the headline suggests. Also, data from other countries is a confounder since most other countries are much healthier than the US, and hence should have fewer cancers to begin with. And how can cancer risk go down but risk of dying of cancer not go down? That could partially be explained by a pro-cancer lifestyle, but it needs some explanation.

 

[sammmy]

The study questions the effectiveness of the health policy "to invite people to do a screening colonoscopy", when in reality most people will not do it.

It doesn't question the effectiveness of a screening colonoscopy when you actually do it. There is no contradiction, just sensationalistic BS:

"I think it's just hard to know the value of a screening test when the majority of people in the screening didn't get it done," said Dr. William Dahut, chief scientific officer at the American Cancer Society, who was not involved in the study.


Less than half of people invited to get a colonoscopy in the study -- just 42% -- actually got one.


When the study authors restricted the results to the people who actually received colonoscopies -- about 12,000 out of the more than 28,000 who were invited to do so -- the procedure was found to be more effective. It reduced the risk of colorectal cancer by 31% and cut the risk of dying of that cancer by 50%.

 

[Seth]

I've had three of them. First two, they found and removed polyps. They weren't cancer, but could turn into it. Third one was clear, but to be safe, I have one now every three years.

 

[Vince]

My quick reading of this suggests the real-world benefits may be higher than the headline suggests. Also, data from other countries is a confounder since most other countries are much healthier than the US, and hence should have fewer cancers to begin with. And how can cancer risk go down but risk of dying of cancer not go down? That could partially be explained by a pro-cancer lifestyle, but it needs some explanation.

If they do their job and colonoscopy properly. They missed my wife's tumor when she had one 4 1/2 years ago. It would have been small and easy to remove.

 

[sammmy]

In between colonoscopies, one should do a fecal occult blood test every year, to increase sensitivity.

There are also "early detection" blood tests based on DNA methylation, such as Galleri, but these are in development, yet not clear how sensitive, and insurance doesn't cover them yet. Galleri currently costs $940.