Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States. Because of the silent nature of early disease, screening may allow earlier discovery of colorectal cancer at a time when treatment is most likely to make a difference in survival. In addition to finding cancers early, screening may help prevent colorectal cancer through removal of polyps before they have a chance to develop into cancer. In spite of good evidence that screening is effective at preventing deaths, rates of colorectal cancer screening lag behind that of other screening test such as mammography and PSA testing.
CT Colography, also known as "Virtual Colonoscopy" is one of the newer colorectal cancer screening options. Proponents claim that it is more convenient and acceptable to patients than colonoscopy, while others cite concerns about findings outside of the colon, radiation exposure, and the need for follow-up colonoscopy if something is found.
The story describes the cost of virtual colonoscopy compared to standard colonoscopy, although it isn’t clear that $1500 versus $800 is accurate in all setting and also does not include the fact that 20% will require a follow-up colonoscopy. The story also mentions the crucial issue of insurance coverage. While more insurance companies are starting to cover the procedure, many do not. The recent CMS decision not to cover it has been highly influential.
The story adequately describes the evidence to support the procedure and cites conflicting conclusions from two different organizations – the American Cancer Society and the US Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF). The story mentions standard colonoscopy as the alternative to virtual colonoscopy. The story could have also mentioned some of the other screening tests that are available, such as stool tests, sigmoidoscopy or barium enema.
The story does a good job of describing the potential harms of the procedure, including radiation exposure (250 times that of a chest x-ray), missing small or flat polyps, and incidental findings that might lead to unnecessary treatments. The story could have also emphasized that about 20% will require a follow-up colonoscopy because of suspicious findings.
The story could have been improved by quantifying the benefits of CT colography. While it does provide the frequency of incidental findings, it does not indicate what percentage of polyps are found relative to standard colonoscopy.
The story describes the cost of virtual colonoscopy compared to standard colonoscopy, although it isn’t clear that $1500 versus $800 is accurate in all settings and also does not include the fact that 20% will require a follow-up colonoscopy. The story also mentions the crucial issue of insurance coverage. While more insurance companies are starting to cover the procedure, many do not. The recent CMS decision not to cover it has been highly influential.
The story does not adequately quantify the benefits of virtual colonoscopy. While it does provide the frequency of incidental findings, it does not indicate what percentage of polyps are found relative to standard colonoscopy.
The story does a good job of describing the potential harms of the procedure, including radiation exposure (250 times that of a chest x-ray), missing small or flat polyps, and incidental findings that might lead to unnecessary treatments. The story could have also emphasized that about 20% will require a follow-up colonoscopy because of suspicious findings.
The story adequately describes the evidence to support the procedure and cites conflicting conclusions from two different organizations – the American Cancer Society and the USPSTF.
The story does not exaggerate the seriousness or prevalence of colon cancer.
The story quotes multiple sources with differing persepctives.
The story mentions standard colonoscopy as the alternative to virtual colonoscopy. The story could have also mentioned some of the other screening tests that are available, such as stool tests, sigmoidoscopy or barium enema.
Clearly virtual colonoscopy is available. The story could have described how widely available the procedure is – for example, is it still only limited to large, academic or urban medical centers?
The story adequately describes the novelty of the procedure.
Because the story quotes multiple sources, the reader can assume the story did not rely on a press release as the sole source of information.
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
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.