ReportWire

Tag: cancer screening

  • Under new federal guidelines, women can test for cervical cancer at home – WTOP News

    [ad_1]

    The Teal Wand is an FDA-approved device for at-home cervical cancer screening. It works like a tampon, allowing women to collect their own sample with support from a virtual medical provider.

    New federal recommendations have expanded testing options for HPV, which can cause cervical cancer, and bring them right to your front door.

    Women can still choose to get a pelvic exam at the doctor’s office, or they can now use a self-collection kit. HPV testing is the preferred cervical cancer screening method for women ages 30 to 65.

    “HPV is the cause of cervical cancer, and anywhere from 95 to 99% of cervical cancer,” said Dr. Ebony Hoskins, section director of gynecologic oncology at MedStar Washington Hospital Center.

    On Monday, the Health Resources and Services Administration released the new cervical cancer screening guidelines. In an article published in JAMA, the administration said self-collection “is an important and innovative breakthrough in the fight against cervical cancer and has the potential to increase screening rates and save lives.”

    The Teal Wand is an FDA-approved device for at-home cervical cancer screening. It works like a tampon, allowing women to collect their own sample and then turn it over to a laboratory for testing, with support from a virtual medical provider.

    “The test is accurate. And with that test, patients who used it found it more satisfactory to have the test administered at home,” Hoskins said. “I felt more reassured that they have providers to help guide the patient on how to do it, what the results mean if they need any follow-up care.”

    She recommended regular gynecological visits and talking to your physician, but said certain patients may benefit from an at-home test.

    “There are some people who have anxiety about doing pelvic exams,” she said. “They have transportation issues that prohibit coming into the office.”

    The Teal Wand costs $250, but insurance plans must cover the self‑collection kit starting Jan. 1, 2027.

    According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 4,000 women die each year from cervical cancer in the U.S. and about 13,000 new cases are diagnosed. About 20% of cervical cancer occurs in women after the age of 65, an age when most women are no longer screened.

    “It is very important to get tested and screened because cervical cancer is preventable,” Dr. Hoskins said.

    There will be a Cervical Cancer Summit in D.C. at the end of January for patients, survivors, caregivers and advocates.

    [ad_2]

    Linh Bui

    Source link

  • Missing the first mammogram linked to increased risk of breast cancer death, new study suggests

    [ad_1]

    (CNN) — Women who miss their first screening appointment for breast cancer could have a 40% higher long-term risk of dying from the disease, according to a new study.

    I wanted to understand more about the importance of screening and the results of this large study — especially since October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. The research, published September 24 in the journal The BMJ, involved more than 400,000 women in Sweden who were monitored for up to 25 years.

    When should women begin screening for breast cancer, and why could delayed initial screening result in a higher longer-term risk of cancer death? In addition to mammograms, are there other tests that women should ask for? What about breast self-exams? And what are steps women can take to reduce their risk of developing breast cancer?

    To guide us through these questions, I spoke with CNN wellness expert Dr. Leana Wen. Wen is an emergency physician and adjunct associate professor at George Washington University. She previously served as Baltimore’s health commissioner.

    CNN: How common is breast cancer?

    Dr. Leana Wen: In the United States, breast cancer is the second most common cancer among women and the second leading cause of cancer death among women, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2022, more than 279,000 new breast cancer cases in female patients were reported in the US; in 2023, more than 42,000 women died from the disease.

    A report published in February found that globally, 1 in 20 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in their lifetime. At this rate, researchers estimate that by 2050, there will be 3.2 million new breast cancer cases and 1.1 million breast cancer-related deaths per year.

    Early screening is crucial because the best prognosis is when breast cancer is diagnosed and treated in its earliest stages. When breast cancer is diagnosed in its localized stages — before it has spread — the five-year survival rate is more than 99%, according to the American Cancer Society. When the cancer is detected after it has spread to other organs, the survival rate drops to about 32%.

    CNN: When should women begin screening for breast cancer?

    Wen: Last year, the US Preventive Services Task Force lowered the recommended age for most women to start receiving mammograms to age 40. The guidance is that women should receive a mammogram every other year until age 74. For those 75 and above, the decision to continue screenings is a personal one to make with one’s primary care provider.

    This recommendation covers people with an average risk of breast cancer. Those with a higher risk are encouraged to speak with their health care provider to discuss whether they should begin screenings sooner and at a higher frequency than every other year. Elements that increase risk include a history of radiation to the chest, certain genetic mutations, and having a first-degree relative (like a mother or sister) with breast cancer.

    CNN: What does this new study show?

    Wen: This study tracked outcomes from 432,775 women in Sweden for up to 25 years. Among women invited to their first mammogram screening, nearly one-third did not participate. The nonparticipants continued to be less likely to participate in subsequent mammograms and more likely to have breast cancer diagnosed in advanced stages, the researchers found.

    Notably, the odds of these initial nonparticipants being diagnosed with stage 3 cancer was 1.5 times greater, and 3.6 times greater for stage 4 cancer, compared with those who did participate in a first screening. Breast cancer deaths after 25 years for this group were significantly higher compared with those who followed through on a first mammogram.

    These results are notable because of the large population that the study team monitored over a substantial period of time. Researchers point out that findings may not generalize to all populations that have different health care systems from Sweden’s, though I think that the concept of perpetually missed screenings leading to higher cancer rates probably is the case around the world. An accompanying editorial in the same journal highlighted that the decision to attend the first mammography screening is not just a short-term health check-up — it’s a long-term investment that has implications for future health and survival.

    CNN: Why does delayed initial screening result in a higher longer-term risk of cancer death in this study?

    Wen: I think the key is that the initial nonparticipants were also more likely to persistently miss subsequent follow-up screening exams. The reasons for this are likely complicated and could be a combination of factors, including lack of awareness, barriers to access and fear of finding out the result. Cultural factors may also be at play. The result is that these individuals were more likely to have their cancers diagnosed at a later stage, when survival rates are lower, and therefore tragically ended up having more deaths from their cancers.

    CNN: In addition to mammograms, are there other tests that women should ask for?

    Wen: Mammograms, which are essentially an X-ray of the breast, are the standard screening test for most women at average risk of breast cancer. Those with higher risk of breast cancer may be recommended for additional tests, such as genetic testing, breast MRI or ultrasound. Women with dense breast tissue may also wish to ask their provider if additional tests are recommended, since the mammogram is less sensitive in detecting breast cancer in these individuals.

    CNN: What about breast self-exams?

    Wen: Breast self-exams are not routinely recommended as a screening test and should not replace the mammogram. However, women should know how their breasts look and feel and be on the lookout for any concerning changes.

    It is important to separate out screening from diagnosis. The mammogram is a screening test that is done when someone has no symptoms. But if someone detects a new mass or lump, they need to get it evaluated to see whether it could be cancer.

    Other potentially concerning changes including nipple discharge, pain or swelling in their breast, changes in the color of the nipple or breast, the nipple turning inward, painful or enlarged lymph nodes in the armpits or near the collarbone, or redness or flaky skin on the breast. People who notice these changes should not wait to make an appointment to see their health care provider.

    CNN: For women who are concerned about their risk of breast cancer, are there steps they can take to reduce their risk?

    Wen: Yes. Risk factors for developing breast cancer include smoking, heavy alcohol use, overweight and obesity. Quitting smoking, reducing alcohol consumption and keeping a healthy weight will help to reduce the risk of breast cancer. Being physically active and eating a nutritious diet can also reduce cancer risk, as well as improve health overall.

    [ad_2]

    Katia Hetter and CNN

    Source link

  • Most lung cancer is diagnosed at Stage 4: How Md. health system catches 40% at Stage 1 – WTOP News

    [ad_1]

    Frederick Health Medical Group is outpacing national averages by detecting nearly 40% of lung cancers at Stage 1 with 3D imaging and robotic bronchoscopy.

    An ion robotic bronchoscopy system used by Frederick Health.(Courtesy Frederick Health)

    Most lung cancer in the U.S. is diagnosed at Stage 4, after the leading cause of cancer deaths has spread to other parts of the body. However, a Maryland health system is outpacing national averages by detecting nearly 40% of lung cancers at Stage 1.

    Frederick Health Medical Group, in Frederick, Maryland, identifies lung cancer early by investigating tiny clues, which enables patients to get to cancer specialists earlier in the process, according to a doctor with the group.

    “Lung cancer is a scary thing because it does not cause symptoms until it’s too late,” said Dr. Maurice Smith, thoracic surgeon and medical director for chest surgery with Frederick Health Medical Group.

    With new 3D imaging, robotic bronchoscopy and a comprehensive multidisciplinary approach, Frederick Health is diagnosing nearly 40% of lung cancers at Stage 1, surpassing the national average of 27%.

    “We’re able to get to these abnormalities in the lung before they get too big,” Smith said.

    Doctors and researchers have long known that early diagnosis of lung cancer improves the success of available treatments, and the patient’s quality of life.

    With more and more younger patients being diagnosed with lung cancer, advocacy groups have called for earlier screening with low-dose CT scans. Currently, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines is limited to adults aged 50 to 80, who have smoked a pack of cigarettes a day for 20 years.

    “That’s for patients who are high risk,” Smith said. “The government pays for it for 50 through 80. You don’t necessarily have an abnormality, but you’re trying to screen to see if you do.”

    And only approximately 20% of Americans who are eligible for screening get it done on an annual basis.

    Most of the lung cancer cases discovered by Frederick Health came when doctors weren’t looking for cancer.

    Smith said that of the 130 lung cancers diagnosed at Frederick Health recently, 60% were identified after a CT scan for another reason, and only 40% were discovered during lung cancer screening.

    According to the American Cancer Society, the five-year survival rate for non-small cell lung cancer discovered in Stage 1 is 67%. For Stage 4, in which lung cancer has spread to other organs, the five-year survival rate is 12%, although it continues to improve significantly with recent trends in targeted therapies.

    Early diagnosis, even though ‘it didn’t blare lung cancer’

    Smith said Frederick Health isn’t getting more people in for CT lung cancer screening, but rather capitalizing on CT scans that are done in the emergency room or a physician’s office to deal with everything from a cough to a sprain.

    “If you go to the ER department, for the most part you’re going to walk out of there with a CT scan,” Smith said. “The disconnect has been that those CT scans in the ER, those CT scans in the community, were not being followed up on, because it wasn’t flagged as suspicious, because it was a smaller nodule.”

    But that’s changed with implementation of ION robotic technology, manufactured by Intuitive, along with advanced 3D imaging.

    “We’re able to go after lesions as small as an apple seed,” Smith said.

    Now, if a CT scan done in the ER or the office of a Frederick Health provider discovers a nodule that was previously considered too small for concern, a report is automatically forwarded to the center’s incidental pulmonary nodules clinic, which contacts the patient and primary care provider to coordinate follow-up.

    It’s cancer: Now what?

    New robotic bronchoscopy technology gives surgeons and interventional pulmonologists a way to perform minimally invasive biopsies of lung nodules.

    “The traditional bronchoscopy is about the size of your thumb, so it can only navigate to a certain point within your airway,” Smith said. “With our new robotic bronchoscopy, it’s very thin and flexible, so it’s able to reach any point in the lung from the outside.”

    During the staging process to determine whether lung cancer has spread, a patient would typically undergo three procedures: a bronchoscopy to retrieve a biopsy, another bronchoscopy after diagnosis to look for spread to lymph nodes in the center of the chest, and finally a lobectomy, or other surgery to remove an early-stage tumor.

    “So now, from that first appointment, we are usually getting patients a biopsy within two to three weeks,” Smith said. “From beginning to end, to diagnosis, we’re about three to four weeks, which we’re very excited about.”

    Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.

    © 2025 WTOP. All Rights Reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.

    [ad_2]

    Neal Augenstein

    Source link

  • Urine test could provide early detection of cancer in dogs – WTOP News

    Urine test could provide early detection of cancer in dogs – WTOP News

    [ad_1]

    One in four dogs will be diagnosed with cancer. Virginia Tech researchers have developed a noninvasive, rapid test using a dog’s urine, that allows for potential early detection of cancer.

    For a dog owner, learning that a pet has cancer can be devastating, and is more common than many would think.

    “One in four dogs will be diagnosed with cancer,” said John Robertson, research professor in the Department of Biomedical Engineering and Mechanics at Virginia Tech. “By the time they’re middle-aged, 50% of dogs will die of cancer after the age of 10 years.”

    Robertson is part of a research team that has developed a new noninvasive rapid test using a dog’s urine that allows for potential early detection of cancer

    “Usually, when a dog gets diagnosed with cancer, it’s usually quite advanced, with visible signs — we’re trying to detect cancer before these physical symptoms appear,” said fellow researcher Ryan Senger, associate professor in the Department of Biological Systems Engineering.

    “Cancer is going to change overall metabolism inside the body, and it’s going to change the way the kidneys function,” which can be observed in the urine screening process, Senger said.

    The researchers sampled urine and found through the display of molecules that cancerous subjects had a unique “fingerprint” that could be used to indicate the presence of cancer.

    “We would like to be able to have dogs screened earlier, before cancer develops, throughout their lifetime, perhaps a once-a-year urine specimen,” said Robertson. “That tells us what the molecular fingerprint of the urine is, so if it changes and falls into that realm of fingerprints that define cancer, we’d be able to pay more attention to figure out what’s going on with the dog.”

    Robertson said there are 12 breeds of purebred dogs that have a much higher incidence of cancer. “We’re going to focus to be able to institute early, regular screening that’s going to help pick up earlier when they’re developing cancer, in the hopes that we can get better outcomes.”

    Unlike medical care, which is often paid for by insurance, “veterinary care is typically subsidized by the owner,” said Robertson. “So, we intend to make our tests readily available at a price point that everyone can afford to regularly have their dog examined and screened.”

    Robertson said the urine screening is currently being researched, to determine whether it could be applied to humans.

    The team’s findings were published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science.

    Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.

    © 2024 WTOP. All Rights Reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.

    [ad_2]

    Neal Augenstein

    Source link

  • New Cancer Screen, Same Issues: Can New Test Be Trusted?

    New Cancer Screen, Same Issues: Can New Test Be Trusted?

    [ad_1]

    Feb. 17, 2023 – In January 2022, Anthony Arenz, a 51-year-old living in Mesa, AZ, breathed a small sigh of relief.

    The blood test that screens for 50 types of cancer – known as the Galleri test – hadn’t detected any positive signs.

    It would be welcome news to anyone, but especially to a firefighter, whose job brings a 9% greater risk of developing cancer and a 14% greater risk of dying from it than the average person. The Mesa unit had already lost two servicemen to cancer in the previous 3 years. Both were more than a decade younger than Arenz.

    But when the city of Mesa offered more free screening – including a full-body MRI to firefighters over 50 – Arenz shrugged it off at first. With a negative Galleri test in hand, he didn’t want to spend more time dwelling on it.

    Still, he began to feel a creeping guilt for skipping a test that many of his fallen colleagues hadn’t been offered. He tried to soothe his anxiety with research. A look through the company’s website didn’t set him at ease. According to Grail Bio, maker of the Galleri test, a result of “No Cancer Signal Detected” does not rule out cancer.

    Arenz booked his free MRI.

    The results left him heavy: stage I kidney cancer. The Galleri test had missed it.

    Arenz received his free Galleri test through a cancer screening program funded by the city of Mesa at Vincere Cancer Center in Scottsdale. Under the leadership of radiation oncologist and Vincere co-owner Vershalee Shukla, MD, the program screens first responders in more than 10 Arizona cities at no cost to them.

    Vincere began using Galleri shortly after the test launched for consumers in June 2021. Since then, the first responder program has become the largest commercial user of the test in North America.

    But Galleri’s ability to identify cancer and, perhaps more importantly, the fallout from wrong results, have been under scrutiny since the test’s launch. Galleri, which has not yet been FDA-approved, is still so new that few know what incorrect results look like in practice and how often they might occur.

    ‘Good’ But ‘Not Ready Yet’

    After running the test on about 2,000 first responders, Shukla can offer some insights about the test’s real-world value in a high-risk population.

    “Cancer screening is a very complicated issue,” she says. And “being honest, the tests are good but are not ready yet [for wider use].”

    Arenz was not the only firefighter who faced a surprise after taking a Galleri test.

    In nearby Phoenix, 51-year-old Mike Curtis knew his risk for cancer was high, but he wasn’t that worried. Curtis had been running into fires since he was 17, and his dad, also a firefighter, had died of cancer at age 58.

    He’d taken the Vincere Cancer Center up on every free screening service since the program began in late 2018 — well before Shukla started using Galleri in 2021. His most recent lung scan was clear. But he did the Galleri test just to stay vigilant.

    His result was a shock. The test detected signs of cancer.

    Curtis decided to tell no one, not even his wife. He’d bear the bad news alone until he was certain.

    Shukla, however, doubted the blood test results right away. She rushed to do several follow-up tests. One week, and scans of Curtis’s belly and pelvis later, her hunch was confirmed. The Galleri test was wrong, Curtis did not have cancer.

    The price of his peace of mind: an extensive work-up with a $4,000 price tag. Fortunately, the bill was covered by the screening program.

    Overall, in just over 18 months of using the blood test, Shukla has only encountered one other false positive out of about 2,000 Galleri results.

    She also discovered two positive signals for cancer using Galleri, which were confirmed with follow-up tests. One was a chordoma, a rare type of bone cancer, and the other was a squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Galleri caught both remarkably early, in time for treatment.

    But for Shukla, false negatives were particularly “horrible.” Arenz’s was just one of 28 cancers that the blood test missed. And because 500 negative tests are yet to be validated, the 28 false negatives may be an underestimate.

    In her experience, the binary test result – a simple positive or negative cancer signal – is an oversimplification of risk, she says. It “gives a false perception that you have cancer, or you don’t,” when the test itself is not definitive.

    Grail Senior Medical Director Whitney Jones, MD, agrees that the test is not meant to be a standalone when screening for cancer. The goal of Galleri is to “complement other screenings, not replace them,” he says.

    According to an analysis of Galleri data and Shukla’s experience, the test’s specificity was over 99%. That means the test successfully minimizes false positives.

    But the test’s sensitivity was much lower. Shukla’s data in first responders measured the sensitivity to be 6.7%. That means the test misses about 93 out of every 100 cancers. According to Grail’s latest data in more than 6,300 people over age 50, the test’s sensitivity was 29%.

    Specificity and sensitivity are metrics used to credential a test and demonstrate confidence in its ability to detect the target disease. A test with high specificity can correctly identify patients without the condition in question, while a test with high sensitivity can correctly identify patients who do have the disease. But there are tradeoffs between sensitivity and specificity. One value is increased at the expense of the other.

    It’s normal for a cancer screening test to prioritize specificity, says Aparna Parikh, MD, an oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston. In a test like Galleri, which is meant to be used with other screening tests, “at least we are seeing a good specificity, which is important because we don’t want false positives, where the downstream impact on the patient can be high.”

    Overall, Jones says, Grail Bio’s aim is to build a test that’s sensitive enough to catch the most dangerous cancers without flooding the health system with false positives. In addition, he says, the sensitivity varies by cancer type and tends to be lower for cancers that already have other available screening tests as well as for earlier-stage disease.

    But the Galleri sensitivity values are “a little bit scary,” says Ji-Hyun Lee, a doctor of public health and director of the Division of Quantitative Sciences at the University of Florida Health Cancer Center. Lee, who is not affiliated with Grail, reviewed the company’s publicly available data as well as Shukla’s data for WebMD.

    While there’s no definitive threshold for sensitivity, miss rates as high as 93% and 71% “provide little confidence in the [accuracy of the] test,” Lee says.

    Positive and negative predictive values, however, are more clinically relevant measures of a screening test. These numbers inform how likely a patient’s results are true, and therefore how worried they should be about a positive result and how much they should trust a negative .

    In first responders, Shukla found that only half of positive Galleri tests were confirmed cases of cancer. And an analysis of Grail’s data found only 38% of positive Galleri tests – 35 of 92 people – had a validated cancer diagnosis.

    In the general population, if only 38% of positive Galleri results truly have cancer, the test is “not quite useful to make a decision for the patient or the providers,” Lee says.

    Galleri may also be a costly prospect for patients, no matter the result, says Electra Paskett, PhD, an epidemiologist and cancer screening expert at Ohio State University. A positive Galleri test requires a cascade of follow-up diagnostic tests without the promise of payer coverage. For a negative result, Galleri recommends the patient be screened again in a year, an annual cost of $950 plus any follow-up testing when Galleri does pick something up.

    “If a provider wants to offer the Galleri test, all those things need to be made abundantly clear, in my opinion,” Paskett says.

    After a negative Galleri test, Arenz’s cancer didn’t slip through the cracks because he received other advanced imaging free of charge. But whether all doctors will go to such lengths to back up Galleri results, even in negative patients, is unknown.

    A negative result can give patients “a huge false sense of security,” says Shukla. And if a test is positive, the workup isn’t simple, she says. Chasing cancer, especially one that’s not really there, can be nerve-racking and expensive.

    The question, then, is: Why do the Galleri test at all if it requires so much validation?

    Parikh says that a high-risk group like firefighters stands to be an ideal use case for Galleri and other liquid biopsy tests. But, she says, if it were used more widely in the general population, she would be “wary of the ability of the system to manage this test en masse.”

    Shukla says it’s less about the results she’s getting today and more about making the test more effective for her patients in the future. First responders need a test like this that can quickly identify multiple cancers, she says. But for it to improve, Grail needs more data in this high-risk population. That’s what she’s after.

    Curtis doesn’t regret taking the Galleri test. The emotional toll of thinking he had cancer for a few days wasn’t too high a price, in his opinion. It’s part of cancer screening.

    But he says it would be a much more burdensome experience if he’d been financially responsible for the workup, or if he hadn’t had Shukla to manage his case from start to finish.

    Because it was free, Arenz doesn’t regret Galleri either. But he tells his co-workers to check the site, do their research, and get more screening.

    “Any medical center that’s just doing this one test, you just have to be careful,” Shukla says. “It’s not that easy.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Most Cancers Not Found Through Screenings

    Most Cancers Not Found Through Screenings

    [ad_1]

    Dec. 15, 2022 — Just 14.1% of cancer cases in the United States are diagnosed through recommended screening tests, a new report says.

    Instead, most cancers are found when someone seeks medical attention for something else, according to the information posted by the nonprofit research organization NORC at the University of Chicago.

    “I was shocked that only 14% of cancers were detected by screening. I think, for many people, we talk so much about cancer screening that we imagine that that’s how all cancers are diagnosed. We talk about mammograms and colonoscopies all the time,” said Caroline Pearson, an author of the report and senior vice president at the organization, on CNN.

    Only breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer have screenings recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Of those, here are the percentages of cancers found by screening: 

    • 61% of breast cancers 
    • 52% of cervical cancers 
    • 45% of colorectal cancers
    • 3% of lung cancers

    The report also shared information on prostate cancer, although screening for it isn’t widely recommended. The report suggests that screenings detect 77% of prostate cancers.

    The information hasn’t been published in a peer-reviewed journal. It is based on 2017 data. Pearson said the numbers of cancer screenings have fallen since then because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

    “I definitely think that the percent of cancers detected by screening would have been lower as a result of the pandemic. We know that people missed a tremendous number of recommended screenings, and we are seeing those cancers showing up at later stages in clinical settings,” Pearson said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Henderson Co. breast cancer survivor shares story, helps inform Spanish-speaking community

    Henderson Co. breast cancer survivor shares story, helps inform Spanish-speaking community

    [ad_1]

    Breast cancer survivor shares story, helps inform Spanish-speaking community

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Colonoscopy Benefits Lower Than Expected, Study Shows

    Colonoscopy Benefits Lower Than Expected, Study Shows

    [ad_1]

    Oct. 10, 2022 — Getting a colonoscopy might not offer as many benefits as we previously thought about what is considered a gold standard in cancer screening, according to a surprising new study out of northern Europe. 

    After a 10-year follow-up study of people who were invited to receive a colonoscopy, researchers compared their results to a group of people who did not get the cancer screening. The former group had only an 18% lower risk of getting colon cancer, and the procedure didn’t make much difference in colon cancer deaths, according to results published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

    Colon cancer — the second leading cause of cancer in the U.S. and the third in the world — is commonly found in adults over age 50.

    During a colonoscopy, doctors insert a small camera through your anus to examine your large intestine and rectum (AKA your colon).

    “The absolute risks of the risk of colorectal cancer and even more so of colorectal cancer–related death were lower than those in previous screening trials and lower than what we anticipated when the trial was planned,” says Michael Bretthauer, MD, a gastroenterologist from the University of Oslo Department of Medicine in Norway, and lead researcher of the study.

    If you hate colonoscopies, don’t start jumping with glee just yet. The study also had its flaws. 

    Researchers invited about 28,000 people enrolled in a long-term Northern European healthy study to get a colonoscopy. A little less than half — 42% — (actually received it. 

    “It’s hard to know the value of a screening test when the majority of people in the study didn’t get it done,” says William Dahut, MD, chief scientific officer at the American Cancer Society.

    However, study patients who did undergo a colonoscopy had a 31% decrease in the risk of colorectal cancer, and cancer-related deaths dropped in half as compared to those who were not screened. This result points to the value of continued screening.

    Getting a colon cancer screening is still the best method of prevention, says Karen Knudsen, PhD, chief executive officer at the American Cancer Society.

    “The American Cancer Society recommends colorectal cancer screening, including colonoscopy, for adults beginning at age 45,” Knudsen says. “There’s no reason to change that direction. Recommended cancer screenings should be a routine part of good health.”

    Click here for more information on colon cancer screening.

    [ad_2]

    Source link