Government agency shoots down 3 new colon cancer tests
I have some shocking news. You might want to sit down for this one For once, a government agency got it right. I know, I know – I’m as stunned as you are. Let me tell you about the crew who got it right: it’s a division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services called The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (PSTF), a collection of independent medical experts appointed by the government.
Recently, the group refused to approve three new screenings for colon cancer. They’ve even recommended that screenings for colon cancer beyond the age of 75 should be halted because the risks vastly outweigh the rewards.
All I can say is: it’s about time.
Don’t get me wrong: I think it’s critical that doctors continue their search for an accurate colon cancer screening. Colon cancer is often completely curable if it’s caught early enough. The problem is that the current batch of rectal exams is incredibly unreliable.
The newer colon cancer screenings that the PSTF declined to endorse are just as inaccurate. The three tests in question are the CT colonography, an X-ray procedure called a “virtual colonoscopy,” and a DNA test that screens stool samples. In spite of the fact that the American Cancer Society and major radiology and gastroenterology groups are all in favor of these tests, the PSTF says it’s still too soon to give them the thumbs up.
The virtual colonoscopy, for example, requires a large amount of exposure to radiation every five years. And the test is so hypersensitive that many of the “blips” it picks up could be nothing to worry about – but still require more invasive tests as a follow-up. What’s more, when blips inside the colon are discovered, the patient still must undergo a traditional colonoscopy in order to have them removed. Why not just have a traditional colonoscopy in the first place?
The PSTF has received flak from the medical establishment for nixing the stool DNA test as well. It’s not hard to see why they came to that conclusion: the sensitivity of a single- sample office stool sample for blood test is a shocking 4.9 percent – the statistical equivalent of not being tested at all.
All that these new tests are likely to do is get more healthy people to line up and squander cash on a test that has no benefit. And it’s precisely this sort of thing that’s caused medical costs in our country to reach such astronomically high levels.
I’m also on board with the PSTF’s recommendation against screening for elderly patients over 75. As one PSFT member said, beyond a certain age, “the risks are too great to justify any possible benefit.” Even the traditional colonoscopy is not without potential dangers such as infection, perforations of the colon wall, and adverse reactions to the sedatives required to perform the test (if you know anything about colonoscopy, you know why sedatives are such an integral part of the procedure).
Still, until something better comes along – and it hasn’t yet – traditional colonoscopy is one of the only forms of early diagnosis that I support.
