The study answers a question pertaining public health policy (should we invite everyone in some age group for a colonoscopy?). It does not answer any individual health/treatment/screening question. The article's headline and content is problematic because it's easy to confuse the two, and the vast majority of readers will never get involved in public health policy (but will certainly have to make lots of individual health decisions).
Is that the wrong conclusion to reach from the data?
In the case of colon cancer detected in a colonoscopy they can snip it out right there without a lot of effort, risk or lost function. Surgery on the prostate is likely to cause all sorts of problems for men.
The problem with your doctor's recommendation is that doctors recommend colonoscopy based on age, not whether you have any factors that might indicate colon cancer. I have no cancer of any kind anywhere in my family tree and they are always on me to get one.
From the article, a doctor who still believes in colonoscopy for everyone: “The first message is that screening saves lives [Ed: against this study's data] and prevents cancer. If we could have a chance to start everyone at age 45, I’d like that."
This study is meant to inform the public health policy of asymptomatic screening. They tried to see if there was a benefit in offering screenings to random patients, regardless of medical history. The currently recommended screenings for asymptomatic people were adopted because meta-analyses showed they reduced cancer mortality. In the US, the US Preventive Services Task Force keeps up with new studies and revises their recommendations: https://uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/home.
For people with family history or other risk factors, doctors will follow different screening guidelines or just order tests whenever they think it useful.
The study's measured affect has wide errors bars indicating a larger sample size is needed. Subsequent studies could show the affect is more inline with expectations but are unlikely to show less affect.
The question as to whether this will be used to reinforce hesitancy for this procedure; we can already see it in the comment. Logic and reason are not naturally occurring traits. I predict this will be used to move more people into the control group. Going against medical advice is anecdotally meaningful.
I got colon cancer at age 35 (despite being a vegetarian, BTW), and it was first then that suspicion was raised that there could be a hereditary component - which was later confirmed by a gene test.
You should get a colonoscopy. If you are at low risk and look totally healthy after, they'll tell you that you don't need another for a good while and you'll get the benefit of not (often) getting something that you don't think you need and, as a bonus, not die of treatable cancer.
There is a money-making industry around colonoscopies and mamograms. I'm not saying to disregard medical advice in this regard as for any individual there may be good reasons to have these procedures. However you can't completely discount the financial incentives for the providers.
That's not completely true. As a Crohn's Disease sufferer, by doctor has been making me get them since I was a teenager. The indications are high for me. For "normal" people, the general wisdom (apparently based on intuition more than any quantitative analysis) has been that the risks catch up with the general population around 50.
Wrong. They recommend on both. I had no cancer in my family history but then I got colon cancer (no, I hadn't gotten a colonoscopy before--yes, I was an idiot). As a result, all my siblings' (some of whom are still in their 30s) doctors had them get colonoscopies right away. All negative, thank goodness.
Good luck with sticking your head in the sand.
That is exactly what I thought it was saying at a glance. If I skimmed the headline and moved on, instead of digging in, it might have contributed to an unconscious bias against the procedure.
> In this study, about 12,000 people in Sweden, Poland and Norway got colonoscopies. They saw a 31% reduction in their risk of colon cancer and a 50% reduction in their risk of dying from colon cancer compared with people who were not invited to get a colonoscopy.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/10/health/colonoscopy-study-q-an...
I can't realistically see anyone saying "No thanks, doc, I'm not going to get that colonoscopy you recommended, because I saw a headline"
This trend of saying a thing is bad because you can imagine some unbelievably stupid person misinterpreting it and misusing it is getting out of hand. At some point people are responsible for their own decisions.
Dangerous misinformation!! Censor!! I have reported the author, Angus Chen, to his employer.
Or you could just comment...
