Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One of the reasons they don’t recommended colonoscopies after a certain age which varies between 70-75 is because your lining thins and you are more likely to be punctured and then most people get sepsis and die. So like anything you balance the risks of the test versus your risk of getting colon cancer.
A study that lasted 10 years and involved thousands of subjects was finished recently. It found that colonoscopies did NOT decrease all cause mortality. So even if they did extend some lives, they shortened others.
They are encouraged because they are a big money maker, and because doctors just assume they are life-saving.
A study that lasted 10 years and involved thousands of subjects was finished recently. It found that colonoscopies did NOT decrease all cause mortality. So even if they did extend some lives, they shortened others.
They are encouraged because they are a big money maker, and because doctors just assume they are life-saving.
Perhaps you'd be good enough to provide a link to that study, if it exists.
One more time, all you have to do is to look at the Medicare reimbursements for colonoscopies to see what a fallacy that claim about colonoscopies being "big money makers" actually is. I'd hope private insurers might reimburse these procedures at a higher rate, but they generally follow Medicare rates.
One of the reasons they don’t recommended colonoscopies after a certain age which varies between 70-75 is because your lining thins and you are more likely to be punctured and then most people get sepsis and die. So like anything you balance the risks of the test versus your risk of getting colon cancer.
Well, in my case, it was pretty much a no brainer to choose the colonoscopy. Slight chance of colon rupture with a colon cancer, 100% chance of the cancer lurking in my transverse colon eroding its way through the colon wall there- in fact, it had already done so when they found it.
Perhaps you'd be good enough to provide a link to that study, if it exists.
Quote:
The risk of death from any cause was 11.03% in the invited group and 11.04% in the usual-care group
In other words, the rate of death from any cause was almost exactly the same either with or without colonoscopies.
More cases of colorectal cancer were diagnosed in the control (no colonoscopy) group, 622 vs 259. However, the risk of death from colorectal cancer was only slightly higher in the control group.
And the most important thing to notice is that colonoscopies did NOT save lives. This research involved thousands of subjects and lasted 10 years. It is the ONLY research that has looked at whether colonoscopies prevent colorectal cancer or save lives. Colonoscopies were recommended for years based on the assumption that they save lives by preventing cancer.
This research showed that colorectal cases were reduced greatly by colonoscopies. But death from colorectal cancer was only reduced slightly. Why? And why was all cause mortality about the same for both groups? It seems that colonoscopies might cause almost as many deaths as they prevent.
In other words, the rate of death from any cause was almost exactly the same either with or without colonoscopies.
More cases of colorectal cancer were diagnosed in the control (no colonoscopy) group, 622 vs 259. However, the risk of death from colorectal cancer was only slightly higher in the control group.
And the most important thing to notice is that colonoscopies did NOT save lives. This research involved thousands of subjects and lasted 10 years. It is the ONLY research that has looked at whether colonoscopies prevent colorectal cancer or save lives. Colonoscopies were recommended for years based on the assumption that they save lives by preventing cancer.
This research showed that colorectal cases were reduced greatly by colonoscopies. But death from colorectal cancer was only reduced slightly. Why? And why was all cause mortality about the same for both groups? It seems that colonoscopies might cause almost as many deaths as they prevent.
"Only 42% of people invited to have colonoscopy accepted the invitation. Data from everyone invited, regardless of whether they actually underwent colonoscopy, is known as an 'intention-to-screen' analysis. As many news reports correctly noted, the intention-to-screen analysis showed an 18% reduction in later colorectal cancers and no significant reduction in deaths. Importantly, though, when only people who actually had colonoscopy were analyzed (known as a 'per-protocol' analysis), colonoscopy reduced the number of colorectal cancers by 31% and of CRC-associated deaths by 50%."
I do not understand why colonoscopy should be expected to reduce deaths from all causes. They do not "cause almost as many deaths as they prevent".
I had a sigmoidoscopy once and they did that without any sort of anesthesia at all. I watched it on the screen as he did it. The scope for sigmoidoscopy is about half as long as the colon scope. It was basically painless, but a bit mortifyingly embarrassing because it was my first time.
I had one in the early 90's. It was painful. Glad we have moved out of the dark ages.
I had one in the early 90's. It was painful. Glad we have moved out of the dark ages.
They were! My first one was in 1992. The stuff you drank could gag a ton of maggots, I swear. Sadly starting in 2000 I've had one every 5 years since, 6th one is next January. I worked 31 years in power plant and pipeline construction, 2 plants were nuclear facilities. Not fun. Whatever you do people take care of yourself and get checked!
"Only 42% of people invited to have colonoscopy accepted the invitation. Data from everyone invited, regardless of whether they actually underwent colonoscopy, is known as an 'intention-to-screen' analysis. As many news reports correctly noted, the intention-to-screen analysis showed an 18% reduction in later colorectal cancers and no significant reduction in deaths. Importantly, though, when only people who actually had colonoscopy were analyzed (known as a 'per-protocol' analysis), colonoscopy reduced the number of colorectal cancers by 31% and of CRC-associated deaths by 50%."
I do not understand why colonoscopy should be expected to reduce deaths from all causes. They do not "cause almost as many deaths as they prevent".
"I do not understand why colonoscopy should be expected to reduce deaths from all causes."
Good point. Another thing that's important, IMO, is that death is not the only adverse effect that might result from colon cancer. Having to have a colostomy as a result of colon cancer is another adverse result of colon cancer. Even if it doesn't kill you, it certainly diminishes your quality of life, yet would not be included in the data involving only "deaths" from colon cancer.
"Only 42% of people invited to have colonoscopy accepted the invitation. Data from everyone invited, regardless of whether they actually underwent colonoscopy, is known as an 'intention-to-screen' analysis. As many news reports correctly noted, the intention-to-screen analysis showed an 18% reduction in later colorectal cancers and no significant reduction in deaths. Importantly, though, when only people who actually had colonoscopy were analyzed (known as a 'per-protocol' analysis), colonoscopy reduced the number of colorectal cancers by 31% and of CRC-associated deaths by 50%."
I do not understand why colonoscopy should be expected to reduce deaths from all causes. They do not "cause almost as many deaths as they prevent".
You don't understand, but everyone should understand this. With any medical intervention, all cause mortality has to be considered. The intervention could slightly lower death rates for one thing, while slightly raising them for other things. Unless all cause mortality is decreased by an intervention, the intervention has no value.
And I am very skeptical about the article you linked. WHY would the researchers count people who did NOT have colonoscopies as being in the colonoscopy group? That is probably a misunderstanding, I will try to find the information.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
