The Associated Press reports on “A look at underused test in efforts to spur millions needing colon cancer checks.” Excerpts:
The dreaded colonoscopy may get the most attention but a cheap, old-fashioned stool test works, too — and when California health care giant Kaiser Permanente started mailing those tests to patients due for a colon check, its screening rates jumped well above the national average.
Now specialists are looking to Kaiser and the Veterans Affairs health system, another program that stresses stool-tests, for clues to what might encourage more people to get screened for a cancer that can be prevented, not just treated, if only early signs of trouble are spotted in time.
“By overselling and overpromising colonoscopies, we’ve put up barriers for people” to get any type of screening, says Dr. T.R. Levin, Kaiser Permanente’s colorectal cancer screening chief in northern California. …
The $20 stool test — usually handed over by a doctor, performed at home and then mailed to a lab — is considered as effective if properly used once a year. But its use has dropped as colonoscopies took center stage.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
I miss @HealthNewsRevu popping up in my feed. Loved seeing this one today.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/06/zombie-health-care-news/
#healthcare #journalism #ethics #conflictofinterest
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
Comments (8)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Gregory D. Pawelski
February 19, 2010 at 8:59 pmWhy has the use of the stool-test dropped? The “sensitivity” is limited to 30%, and a negative result cannot rule out colorectal cancer. If symptoms are present that suggest colorectal cancer, only a test with almost perfect sensitivity would provide adequate assuance that a neoplasm is not present.
InteractMD.com
February 20, 2010 at 1:58 amThanks for this. At least it gets us talking about the many different ways of screening for colon cancer. I didn’t really see any evidence in the article that occult blood screening has decreased over time. Also, is it a little unusual that the article doesn’t refer to fecal occult blood testing by its actual name? Just asking…
GrammaD
March 9, 2010 at 1:43 pmFor about the last 20 years there has been no mention of the
fecal occult test. Before that, each time we went to the doctor for a physical we were always handed this little test to do and send in.
I thought it was supposed to be effective.
Does it have something to do with money?. Colonoscopy makes the hospital and doctors a lot more money.
Maryann Napoli, Center for Medical Consumers
March 15, 2010 at 10:03 amExcellent points, Gary. There’s another missing element to the FOBT story. The RCTs that compared FOBT with usual care did in fact show a 30% reduced risk of colon cancer deaths in those who took the FOBT, but this benefit was canceled by an inexplicable increase in heart-related deaths. Our 2009 article mentions this largely unrecognized finding. See “How good are colonoscopies?”
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like