Who [over 50yrs old] has not gotten a colonoscopy?

[AyG]

Low/no risk patients, every ten years - high risk patients every year, a sliding scale based on risk exists between those two points:

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/colonandrectumcancer/moreinformation/colonandrectumcancerearlydetection/colorectal-cancer-early-detection-acs-recommendations

That site is also recommending (and I'm cutting and pasting here):

- Flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years

- Double-contrast barium enema every 5 years

- CT colonography (virtual colonoscopy) every 5 years

10 years is too long if you're just relying on colonoscopy.

[chiang mai]

Low/no risk patients, every ten years - high risk patients every year, a sliding scale based on risk exists between those two points:

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/colonandrectumcancer/moreinformation/colonandrectumcancerearlydetection/colorectal-cancer-early-detection-acs-recommendations

That site is also recommending (and I'm cutting and pasting here):

- Flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years

- Double-contrast barium enema every 5 years

- CT colonography (virtual colonoscopy) every 5 years

10 years is too long if you're just relying on colonoscopy.

You missed the part where they say to choose one:

"Beginning at age 50, both men and women at average risk for developing colorectal cancer should use one of the screening tests below":

[Sheryl]

Low/no risk patients, every ten years - high risk patients every year, a sliding scale based on risk exists between those two points:

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/colonandrectumcancer/moreinformation/colonandrectumcancerearlydetection/colorectal-cancer-early-detection-acs-recommendations

That site is also recommending (and I'm cutting and pasting here):

- Flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years

- Double-contrast barium enema every 5 years

- CT colonography (virtual colonoscopy) every 5 years

10 years is too long if you're just relying on colonoscopy.

No, 10 years is not too long. That site says in full:

"Beginning at age 50, both men and women at average risk for developing colorectal cancer should use one of the screening tests below:

Tests that find polyps and cancer

• Flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years*
• Colonoscopy every 10 years
• Double-contrast barium enema every 5 years*
• CT colonography (virtual colonoscopy) every 5 years*

Tests that mainly find cancer

• Fecal occult blood test (FOBT) every year*,**
• Fecal immunochemical test (FIT) every year*,**
• Stool DNA test (sDNA)***

*Colonoscopy should be done if test results are positive.

**For FOBT or FIT used as a screening test, the take-home multiple sample method should be used. An FOBT or FIT done during a digital rectal exam in the doctor's office is not adequate for screening.

***This test is mentioned because it was a part of the ACS guidelines published in 2008, but it is no longer available."

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/colonandrectumcancer/moreinformation/colonandrectumcancerearlydetection/colorectal-cancer-early-detection-acs-recommendations

[AyG]

Low/no risk patients, every ten years - high risk patients every year, a sliding scale based on risk exists between those two points:

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/colonandrectumcancer/moreinformation/colonandrectumcancerearlydetection/colorectal-cancer-early-detection-acs-recommendations

That site is also recommending (and I'm cutting and pasting here):

- Flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years

- Double-contrast barium enema every 5 years

- CT colonography (virtual colonoscopy) every 5 years

10 years is too long if you're just relying on colonoscopy.

No, 10 years is not too long. That site says in full:

"Beginning at age 50, both men and women at average risk for developing colorectal cancer should use one of the screening tests below:

Tests that find polyps and cancer

• Flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years*
• Colonoscopy every 10 years
• Double-contrast barium enema every 5 years*
• CT colonography (virtual colonoscopy) every 5 years*

Tests that mainly find cancer

• Fecal occult blood test (FOBT) every year*,**
• Fecal immunochemical test (FIT) every year*,**
• Stool DNA test (sDNA)***

*Colonoscopy should be done if test results are positive.

**For FOBT or FIT used as a screening test, the take-home multiple sample method should be used. An FOBT or FIT done during a digital rectal exam in the doctor's office is not adequate for screening.

***This test is mentioned because it was a part of the ACS guidelines published in 2008, but it is no longer available."

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/colonandrectumcancer/moreinformation/colonandrectumcancerearlydetection/colorectal-cancer-early-detection-acs-recommendations

I beg to differ. I had no reason to suspect I was higher risk. I'd assumed the overt blood was simply internal piles. I wasn't even 50 years old.

Polyps can grow 1 cm/year, so after 10 years one can have a very large polyp which could well be cancerous by that stage.

The guidelines start from a basis of "average risk". Nobody knows they're other than "average risk". I certainly didn't. No history of problems within the family.

My personal advice would be to get a colonoscopy ever 3-5 years after age 45.

[chiang mai]

But simply, by your own admission, you have turned out to be higher risk because of the findings:

"To give the full history, I was found with 4 polyps which were removed. (At the time I was in my 40s. I had overt blood in my stools.) I had a follow-up colonoscopy after one year which was clear. I was then told to come back every 5 years."

It is for that reason that you are on a different scale from the no/low risk group and that is why you have been advised to have an exam every five years.

[AyG]

But simply, by your own admission, you have turned out to be higher risk because of the findings:

"To give the full history, I was found with 4 polyps which were removed. (At the time I was in my 40s. I had overt blood in my stools.) I had a follow-up colonoscopy after one year which was clear. I was then told to come back every 5 years."

It is for that reason that you are on a different scale from the no/low risk group and that is why you have been advised to have an exam every five years.

Nobody knows what risk group they are in. Get tested before 50. Get tested regularly. The idea that a tumor could be growing for 10 years before it's discovered is, at least for me, scary. After 10 years there's a very real risk that it's cancerous.

[fifthcolumn]

Uncle not related by blood had (has?) Pprostrate cancer and yeah you'd need a check woth scope for polyp's, etc...

Caught early.

[chiang mai]

But simply, by your own admission, you have turned out to be higher risk because of the findings:

"To give the full history, I was found with 4 polyps which were removed. (At the time I was in my 40s. I had overt blood in my stools.) I had a follow-up colonoscopy after one year which was clear. I was then told to come back every 5 years."

It is for that reason that you are on a different scale from the no/low risk group and that is why you have been advised to have an exam every five years.

Nobody knows what risk group they are in. Get tested before 50. Get tested regularly. The idea that a tumor could be growing for 10 years before it's discovered is, at least for me, scary. After 10 years there's a very real risk that it's cancerous.

If a person aged 60 is tested and found to be free of polyps or problems, it's a fairly safe bet they can be put into the low risk category and not required to have a further colonoscopy for another ten years, aka, moi!

If however a person is tested for the first time and found to have problems, polyps et al, it's logical that person undergo more frequent and varied testing, aka, vous.

[Shurup]

Go for it, you might like it!

[tim armstrong]

No history of problems in my family, did have prostate checked by docs finger in the Uk a few years ago which he said was fine age 46 then now 49

I don't know the stats about this, but from personal experience I think the prostate check - annually is more esential. I had one in my early 50's as part of a routine checkup. It lead to a diagnosis and treatment of a reasonably advanced cancer. I've passed the statistically crucial 5yr post treatment period and I'm still here. Although recent research says that thinking positively about your health doesn't make much difference, I don't believe it, but I also don't get too worked up about every potential health problem I could have.

[Kitsune]

The incidence of colon cancer varies by nation but there is no nation or culture completely without it.

Diet is one risk factor but there are others, including genetics.

In black Africa it's a rarity they have less than 1 out of 100 000, and it's proven to be due to diet.

here is the data published by very serious US organization NCBI http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10235221

I follow these dietary recommendations. So no camera up my bum, thank you very much !

Edited February 10, 2014 by Kitsune

[AyG]

The incidence of colon cancer varies by nation but there is no nation or culture completely without it.

Diet is one risk factor but there are others, including genetics.

In black Africa it's a rarity they have less than 1 out of 100 000, and it's proven to be due to diet.

here is the data published by very serious US organization NCBI http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10235221

I follow these dietary recommendations. So no camera up my bum, thank you very much !

The evidence that diet is involved is pretty much overwhelming. Negros in the United States have a much higher level of colon cancer than Caucasians living there, which must be accounted for by diet rather than genetics.

However, certain individuals are genetically susceptible to polyps leading to cancer, so however good one's diet, there's still a need to be "probed" occasionally.

[Kitsune]

The incidence of colon cancer varies by nation but there is no nation or culture completely without it.

Diet is one risk factor but there are others, including genetics.

In black Africa it's a rarity they have less than 1 out of 100 000, and it's proven to be due to diet.

here is the data published by very serious US organization NCBI http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10235221

I follow these dietary recommendations. So no camera up my bum, thank you very much !

The evidence that diet is involved is pretty much overwhelming. Negros in the United States have a much higher level of colon cancer than Caucasians living there, which must be accounted for by diet rather than genetics.

However, certain individuals are genetically susceptible to polyps leading to cancer, so however good one's diet, there's still a need to be "probed" occasionally.

You mean the very professional NCBI "forgot" about the guy who had polyps in their very thorough survey?

Polyps are due to diet too anyway

Sounds like face saving ...

[AyG]

The incidence of colon cancer varies by nation but there is no nation or culture completely without it.

Diet is one risk factor but there are others, including genetics.

In black Africa it's a rarity they have less than 1 out of 100 000, and it's proven to be due to diet.

here is the data published by very serious US organization NCBI http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10235221

I follow these dietary recommendations. So no camera up my bum, thank you very much !

The evidence that diet is involved is pretty much overwhelming. Negros in the United States have a much higher level of colon cancer than Caucasians living there, which must be accounted for by diet rather than genetics.

However, certain individuals are genetically susceptible to polyps leading to cancer, so however good one's diet, there's still a need to be "probed" occasionally.

You mean the very professional NCBI "forgot" about the guy who had polyps in their very thorough survey?

Polyps are due to diet too anyway

Sounds like face saving ...

Some polyps are due to diet. However, you might want to look up Familial Adenomatous Polyposis, Hereditary Non-polyposis Colorectal Cancer, Juvenile Polyposis Syndrome and Peutz Jeghers Syndrome for a start.

[Kitsune]

The evidence that diet is involved is pretty much overwhelming. Negros in the United States have a much higher level of colon cancer than Caucasians living there, which must be accounted for by diet rather than genetics.

However, certain individuals are genetically susceptible to polyps leading to cancer, so however good one's diet, there's still a need to be "probed" occasionally.

You mean the very professional NCBI "forgot" about the guy who had polyps in their very thorough survey?

Polyps are due to diet too anyway

Sounds like face saving ...

Some polyps are due to diet. However, you might want to look up Familial Adenomatous Polyposis, Hereditary Non-polyposis Colorectal Cancer, Juvenile Polyposis Syndrome and Peutz Jeghers Syndrome for a start.

That's old theories.

Since the 80's we know heredity is responsible only for 1% of cancers.

[Sheryl]

Cancer is usually multi-causal.

In most cases where heredity is involved, it is a contributing or risk factor but not a sole cause. (There are some exceptions, however.)

[Kitsune]

Any cancer starts by one single cancer cell that has been inherited by your gene.

Every each of us has cancer cells floating in our body.

They could take up to 60 years to develop, some people have full blown cancer within months, other only develop them very late in life.

It is entirely up to each person, you can have a diet that promote cancer growth and IGF1 in your blood or you can have blood that makes cancer very in-hospitalized by choosing the right diet.

Edited February 15, 2014 by Kitsune

[papa al]

Don't think about it just do it.

It can save your life.

Edit: I'm just under 50 and had it last year

Can you explain why one would need one if he doesn't experience any health issues?

Methinks that if one will never experience any health issues, then reading this forum is a waste of ones time.

[Ajaan]

my doctor recommends another test first. you basically scrap a piece of fresh feces. the scraping is sent in to a lab for testing (traces of blood). If it is positive then you get the scope.....sound reasonable to me. I'm 51....

Same procedure at the medical center I go to (in the US); stool sample and test first.

[AyG]

my doctor recommends another test first. you basically scrap a piece of fresh feces. the scraping is sent in to a lab for testing (traces of blood). If it is positive then you get the scope.....sound reasonable to me. I'm 51....

Same procedure at the medical center I go to (in the US); stool sample and test first.

The test (for faecal occult blood) will only come out positive if the polyp(s) or cancer are bleeding. By that time it might be too late. Incidentally, this test should be performed on multiple stool samples to catch any intermittent bleeding; a single sample isn't enough.

Conventional medical wisdom is to have a colonoscopy done at 50 and regularly thereafter, even in the absence of any symptoms.

[Sheryl]

Any cancer starts by one single cancer cell that has been inherited by your gene.

Every each of us has cancer cells floating in our body.

They could take up to 60 years to develop, some people have full blown cancer within months, other only develop them very late in life.

It is entirely up to each person, you can have a diet that promote cancer growth and IGF1 in your blood or you can have blood that makes cancer very in-hospitalized by choosing the right diet.

Sorry but this is not correct.

One does not inherit cancer cells.

Cancer cells are originally normal cells, but they begin to divide/multiply abnormally. The genetic codes that control the cell division process are damaged and cease to control the pace and amount of cell division properly, so that instead of keeping pace with cellular death, the number of new cells well exceeds that needed for replacement and a tumor forms and grows.

The genetic control of cell division is complex, with built in fail safes, so usually several different genes or parts of genes must be damaged before this takes place. Sometimes people are born with a mutation in one or more genes, giving that process a head start; sometimes environmental factors (drugs, toxins, radiation etc) damage genes, and sometimes mutations occur just by chance in the course of cell division; this last happens now and then to everyone and the older someone is, the more cell divisions their body has undergone and therefore the more chance of mutations having occurred, which is why the risk of cancer increases with age. Indeed, it has been said that everyone would get cancer if they lived long enough - luck of the draw.

Often there is a mixture of chance mutations and mutations due to environmental causes involved, with or without also some inherited mutation.

[Kitsune]

Here is the famous quotation of Dr T Campbell, "Cancer starts with genes" he's "only" the eminent biochemist specialized in relationships between food and health and Jacob Gould Schurman Professor Emeritus of Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell University.

He's also one of the 2 stars in the documentary Fork over Knives, but more scientifically the guy behing the famous "China Study"

Campbell was one of the lead scientists in the 1980s of the China-Oxford–Cornell study on diet and disease, set up in 1983 by Cornell University, the University of Oxford and the Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine to explore the relationship between nutrition and cancer, heart and metabolic diseases. The study was described by The New York Times as "the Grand Prix of epidemiology."^[2]

On this very video here his quote "cancer starts with genes" can be found at 0.21" and he follows by saying "might be genes that you are born with it", he then explains that the development of cancer cells is accelerated or reduced depending of our DIET

These are the results of the China Study a 20-year study – described by The New York Times as "the Grand Prix of epidemiology" – conducted by the Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine, Cornell University and the University of Oxford. T. Colin Campbell was one of the study's directors

For more details please watch "Forks over Knives" a documentary about the finding of Dr T Campbell and Dr Esselstyn and how we can change our diet to better health

Edited February 22, 2014 by Kitsune

[Kitsune]

How does it work exactly?

Here is the detailed explanation of the role of IGF1: a growth hormone that is promoting growth of cancer cells.

"IGF1 help cancer cells break up from the primary tumor and migrate to the surrounding tissues and invade the bloodstream."

It's true for prostate cancer, breast cancer, bones, brain, liver, lung, etc

How do we get IGF1? In our DIET

Edited February 22, 2014 by Kitsune