[thechao]

I'm at high risk for colon cancer & had my first screening last year after putting it off. For those who've not done it yet: it's really no big deal. The most challenging part is drinking the fluids. Please get screened: caught early, it's easily curable, but it definitely kills.

[exhilaration]

My wife got this from her doctor as an alternative to a colonoscopy (in the US): https://www.cologuard.com/

It's an at-home collection stool test. It seems like a super easy and cheap first step before getting a colonoscopy.

[melling]

I took one of those. I was negative but definitely had a tumor. My doctor said you have to take the home test every year.

It’s no replacement for a colonoscopy. They’ll snip those polyps before they grow to become cancerous.

[CaptainOfCoit]

What is the difference in accuracy or other tradeoffs with that compared to a proper colonoscopy? Wasn't clear from the landing page, but I'm guessing there is something, at least not as high accuracy.

[melling]

Definitely get a colonoscopy. Colon cancer is the one cancer you can detect before it’s a problem. I felt a little dumb once I found out I waited a few years too long then needed surgery and chemo.

That liquid biopsy should be used to detect the numerous other cancers.

[melling]

Ask about the Sutab pills instead of the fluids.

Yes, the colonoscopy is a breeze, especially compared to the surgery and chemotherapy. The chemotherapy was definitely harsh. Fortunately, I was a candidate for only 3 months of treatment.

[boredhedgehog]

None of the cancer screening programs have been able to demonstrate an effect on life expectancy, neither colonoscopies nor mammographies.

[ZordonShumway]

From what I’ve seen, studies haven’t done a good job of actually testing for testing lifetime expectancy.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11047044/

“In conclusion, the statement that cancer screenings do not save lives cannot be properly drawn from the Bretthauer's et al. meta-analysis because lifetime gains are likely underestimated and based on uncertain all-cause mortality estimates.

…

Lifetime gains estimated for the screened group from all-cause mortality reduction is a misleading measure and should be avoided because it implies a benefit for all persons in the screening group, including those not affected by the target cancer.”

https://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/...

“Although gaps persist between the full potential benefit and benefits considering adherence, existing cancer screening technologies have offered significant value to the US population. Technologies and policy interventions that can improve adherence and/or expand the number of cancer types tested will provide significantly more value and save significantly more patient lives.”