Discussion about this post

User's avatar
David Harris's avatar

Good luck with the polyps and I admire your hearty attitude.

I also reacted to the trial of a colonoscopy with punchiness, if not puns. I have found this is not appreciated, but I have no intention to quit. I can't just sit there placidly afterwards. Too boring.

The news I will link is a bit sobering, but I think the disappointing outcomes were in part due to people not availing themselves of their invitation to get a colonoscopy. I haven't reviewed the article and don't remember all of the details, so I'm not speaking as a journalist. Just providing a resource. Also, when my father was diagnised colon cancer in 2009, I heard then that 60% of people with coiled colons on one side or the other (I can't remember which) had their cancer undetected by the colonoscopy. So there is a lot of buzz that colonoscopys are not a panacea. My doctor grades people on their prep, and it was my hope that by having everything absolutely clear, she would be able to get an accurate reading.

https://www.statnews.com/2022/10/09/in-gold-standard-trial-colonoscopy-fails-to-reduce-rate-of-cancer-deaths/

Expand full comment
bruce kleinman's avatar

By far – as you discovered – the worst part of the colonoscopy is the prep. I’ve had five – accompanied by an EGD as well - since age 45. And I was one of those “brave souls” who fell in the less than 1% who refuse sedation. But I refused not because I was fearful of going under (hell I was a practicing anesthesiologist at the time) but because I wanted to immediately go back to work after the procedure and also I wanted to drive home. I did not want a designated driver. Anyway, five years ago my GI doc told me “hey Bruce, I know you don’t want sedation and all, but it really does make my job easier, and will make you much more comfortable.” OK. I gave it a try: into the procedure room … name rank and serial number … “a little propofol” … “hey when are you guys going to start the procedure?” … “well we already did and it’s over.” Wow. That propofol stuff is great. Michael Jackson was right. No more going “bare” for me.

So I’m a believer. But as a man of science belief is not good enough. Belief is great for religion but not necessarily for science. So is colonoscopy the miracle screening that saves lives that it’s all crapped up to be? I’m not sure anymore. David Harris provides the STAT report. Here is the primary source:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2208375?articleTools=true

The actual reason why this study did not show a mortality benefit is complicated. It may in fact be that - contrary to the conventional wisdom - there is NO mortality benefit from colonoscopy. It may be that the design of the study was biased to show no mortality benefit. This has to do with comparing results from an “intention to treat” design (the design of this study) to a “per protocol” to a “per treatment” design. They often will result in different and divergent outcomes. Comparing the differences in outcomes (how robust the study results are) due to differences in trial design is known as sensitivity analysis. A supremely robust study will yield the same results regardless of design. That is not the case here. In fact if one were to analyze the results “per treatment” (rather than “intention to treat”) the results are then reassuring and drastically in favor of colonoscopy:

The risk of developing colon cancer decreased by about 31% and deaths were decreased by approx. 50%. (according to a post hoc analysis by the President of the American Society for GI Endoscopy via "per treatment" analysis).

Of course, colonoscopy and related procedures are extremely lucrative to both hospital and physician. In fact the open secret in medicine is we refer to colonoscopy as “scoping for dollars”. So if one was a cynic (I am a skeptic; not a cynic) one might be doubtful about the endorsement of colonoscopy by a President of a GI endoscopy society.

Expand full comment
5 more comments...

No posts