3 to 6 individual stool checks per year. Take a kit home from your doc, and two weeks later, send back 6 samples taken over that time period, or longer.
Repeat the next year.
It’s that gallon of stuff you have to drink the day before that I dread most. I don’t like milk shakes, or hot chocolate, or any other kind of creamy sweet drink. I’m not sure I could get it down.
So, a little time between sampling and testing is OK? I ask because the pediatrician had to get a sample of one of the kids’ stool one time, and we were told to bring it within X number of hours of sampling. From your other post I had visions of going into the Doctor’s office for the sampling.
If one is testing for blood, time doesn’t matter.
Two small samples, smaller than this ‘e’ are sufficient from each stool. It’s dabbed on a hemoccult card and sealed, and then 3 to 6 hemoccult cards, from 3 to 6 different stool events are slipped into a mailer and sealed and shipped off.
If one is testing for infections, etc. then timing becomes important.
In my case it was more like Kool-Aid or thin Jell-o before it set.
It’s not pleasant but even the prep isn’t that bad. Most people who haven’t experienced it think it’s like a bad case of stomach flue or food poisoning. With me, it was more like get a cramp in my gut, run for the toilet, and repeat 10 minutes later.
The stuff they gave me was “phoso-soda” or something like that - not “creamy” at all, more like ginger ale or lemon-line soda, except that was NOT the flavor at all. VERY salty and … well, it’s unique. But nothing like a shake. So obviously there are options in that department.
Does the FOBT give an indication of polyps? I had assumed the advantage of the colonoscopy over the FOBT was that with the colonoscopy you could catch things earlier that with the FOBT.
Ok, if it’s a thin liquid without texture, I could probably do it. My husband had a colonoscopy several years ago and I thought that what he drank was something like a Slim-Fast.
All the FOBT detects is whether there is blood in the stool or not. (Take sample of stool and check for trace amounts of blood.) If the test is positive, then next step is to look for where the blood is coming from, which could be anywhere from mouth to intestines inclusive. Please see Wikipedia entry for more details.
If looking for polyps, you need to visualize the insides of the intestines somehow, usually by colonoscopy but can be done with barium series x-rays of the gut or CT scan (so-called virtual colonoscopy).
The advantage of colonoscopy over FOBT is that your doctor can look at the insides of the intestines and see things that may need attention, whether they be cancerous or not, hopefully before they cause problems.
Hope this helps.
That’s the theoretical advantage of colonoscopy, yes.
So far no studies have shown that using colonoscopy to screen for cancer results in improved survival of cancer over FOBT.
And since FOBT is far cheaper and has fewer complications and much less uncomfortable, I’ll advocate for FOBT for those who want an alternative.
At least until Colonoscopy is shown to result in better survival outcomes than FOBT or other modalities.
Besides, if everyone over 50 who was low risk presented for their colonoscopy screening test, we’d have to train about 10,000 more colonoscopists to do all the exams. :eek:
Qadgop, am I remembering correctly there’s a card you simply drop into the toilet itself before passing a stool and it’ll give an immediate indication of blood? Something that doesn’t need to be sent back to the doctor or lab? If so, is that as reliable, or even for the same purpose?
now there’s a profession that’s not quite my cup of tea!
Not to hijack the thread, but why does anyone choose to be a colonoscopist?
At the hospital where my friends work, all the techie jobs pay the same. But the each job’s demands are totally different:
Now, from what I’ve seen as a patient:
1: the X-ray techs work in a nice clean room, tell you to stay still, and get paid for pressing a button.
2: The electro-encephlograph techs glue electrodes onto your scalp and then get paid to watch you sleep.
3: Or, for the same salary, a technician has to mess around with anuses all day.
Which one of these is not the same? 
(and yes, I’m 50 and procrastinating about scheduling a butt-probe. (But I do recommend qadgop’s “smear-a-bit-of-feces-on-the-card-and-mail-it-back” test. That’s painless, and not too gross. (And my results are negative–the only test I enjoy failing.)
Do you mean if the colonoscopy discovers cancer that there’s no statistical difference? I can believe that, but if you snip out the polyps before they become cancerous (in which case we’re talking apples and oranges—since polyps aren’t cancer and aren’t typically spoken of in survival rates), that would seem to tip the scales in favor of the colonoscopy since you’ve nipped it in the bud. But I don’t know. I’m here to have ignorance fought, too.
Appreciate that link very much, QtM. So much so that it’s being earmarked as we speak.
Why, you might ask? Well, I’m 51 and for the past two, three years, both my BIL and my sis (who have them done on a yearly basis) have been pestering me to get one.
Now, besides being somewhat doctor-phobic, I happened to have seen the day before process a few times – with my departed Mom, and both of them. Without getting into specifics, it is simply fuckin’ disgusting, never mind the bodily discomfort and sheer agony. And what’s the prize? A tube up my rectum.
No thanks. Seems that I’ll be doing the stool hemoccult soon for my and mine butt’s benefit, as well as to stop them from keep nagging me about it.
So once again, gracias!
Well, that’s the theory as to why colonoscopy would be superior. See a polyp, pick it out before cancer results. Net outcome: More saving of life from cancer.
But so far the data hasn’t shown that it is. Why?
One possible explanation: Polyps bleed. We can thus detect polyps by seeing them during colonoscopy. But also by testing for blood in the stool.
So before we invest in millions of dollars to train more colonoscopists and do the test, let’s make sure that mass low risk screening by colonoscopy really is superior by cheap old stool cards. So far the evidence isn’t there that it is.
I have heard of that method, but never seen it or used it. Nor do I know how sensitive or specific it is compared to a hemoccult card employed the traditional way.
De nada!
But remember that if you are a high-risk patient (i.e. first degree family members with a history of colon cancer at a young age, etc) you are better off with colonoscopy.
And if your cards come back positive for blood, you may need a colonoscopy.
Yep. I had one done when I was being diagnosed with gallstones. I let some of the most protracted, kingsize farts I have ever let in my life afterwards.
Agreed 100% - I was not specifically advocating for colonoscopy over FOBT as a screening test. merely trying to clarify that colonoscopy lets you have a look +/- biopsy suspicious things in the gut vs. FOBT just tests for presence of blood in stool and so not able to check specifically for presence of colorectal polyps (given that’s what Earl Snake-Hips Tucker was inquiring about). FOBT is a perfectly good modality for screening for colorectal cancer. Screening with FOBT (followed by colonoscopy for those who test positive) is associated with a decrease in risk of death from colorectal cancer and an increase in the proportion of detected tumours that are stage 1 (earliest stage)cancers (which are more likely to be cured than more advanced stage cancers).
Qadgop - What’s a first degree relative? Parent or sib? I have a couple maternal uncles with colon cancer (and a couple with kidney cancer, mom and sis with breast cancer) but no one in my immediate family has had it. Mom’s had breast and uterine cancer, Dad (a non-smoker) died of lung cancer.
StG