4 ms·
sorry, in all this doom, what do you suggest is the best way to detect? I had hopes on FIT until you pointed the 97% out.
by chanmad29 6y ago
sorry, in all this doom, what do you suggest is the best way to detect? I had hopes on FIT until you pointed the 97% out.
- Kaibeezy 6y agoHuge disclaimer: I don't know much of anything more about this than I've already said herein, but the basic info seems fairly easy to find and parse. - A colonoscopy will detect *most* precursor or active anomalies. - A FIT or FOBT will detect *many* active anomalies once they are bad enough to start releasing traces of blood. What's plain from even a quick read of the info out there is that national health systems and big insurers can't afford to do colonoscopies on everyone, so they have a huge interest in these lower cost lab tests. If enough people take them, then the headline can be "we caught more cancer earlier, and helped a lot of people". But "helped" means things like surviving a few years, which, thanks, but that's not the same as surviving full stop. As an individual, a lab test is way better than nothing, but if your health system or insurance will cover the cost, or if you can afford to pay for it out of pocket, then a colonoscopy will reveal most problems, even fairly early and small ones, and give the surgeon a chance to snip out polyps and such right then and there. If the scope comes back reasonably clear, you can be 10 years until the next one. Keep in mind there is a low risk of "serious complications" (one paper concludes ~2.8 per 1000) or death (~0.34 per 1000) from the colonoscopy procedure. If you'd like to have nightmares about it, source is https://www.giejournal.org/article/S0016-5107(11)01965-1/pdf https://www.giejournal.org/article/S0016-5107(11)01965-1/pdf Please, anyone, correct me if anything there isn't a fair generalization.
- chanmad29 6y agothank you for the TLDR