Preventive Maintenance

[OldDan1943]

After my first one, I now tell doctors, "Not without dinner and a movie first."

[BandB]

Colonoscopy is the preferred approach by most doctors in the US. The reason for the intervals of five years is the normal growth pattern of polyp to cancer. In a typical person it's ten years, but with persons with a greater proclivity toward colon cancer it's more along the lines of 7 years. So, if they check today, remove any small polyps in the process, then 5 years from now they may find more pre-cancerous polyps. Now, like any procedure, it is not a risk free procedure. It's simply for most people the benefit far outweighs the risk.

Upper Endoscopies are also very important for many. The frequency of GERD and it's subsequent damage to the esophagus, the risk of Barrett's Syndrome as a pre-cursor to esophageal cancer, all point to it's value. Often it is done at the same time as a colonoscopy simply as a matter of convenience and to only require one sedation.

[aboatman]

Originally Posted by BandB

............ Upper Endoscopies are also very important for many. The frequency of GERD and it's subsequent damage to the esophagus, the risk of Barrett's Syndrome as a pre-cursor to esophageal cancer, all point to it's value. Often it is done at the same time as a colonoscopy simply as a matter of convenience and to only require one sedation.

That's what I was talking about. I always ask the doctor to do this one first.

[cardude01]

Originally Posted by aboatman

That's what I was talking about. I always ask the doctor to do this one first.

[emoji15]

[dhays]

Originally Posted by Sabre602

It should be emphasized that the old model of "watchful waiting" has been replaced here by "active surveillance," which may include a variety of monitoring modalities, including PSA trending, digital rectal exam and biopsy at intervals. It basically means studying the progression of the disease and only treating it when it's warranted. A study from Johns Hopkins found that fewer than 1% of men in an active surveillance program for diagnosed prostate cancer had meaningful progression of their disease 15 years later. That means that greater than 99% of those men were free from the complications and adverse effects of what would have turned out to be unnecessary treatment, including pain, incontinence, sexual dysfunction, and infection, not to mention expense. Yes, some prostate cancer is aggressive. Most, however, is fairly indolent, meaning that it smolders rather than bursting into flame; the man will die of other causes (or old age) before the cancer has a chance to advance that far.

Great information. I think that PSA testing is much like oil testing. A single test doesn't give nearly as much useful information as PSA readings over time. The PSA value can also vary from one test to another. My PSA has fluctuated from a low of 6.0 to a high of about 14 and then back to 7.2. However, I've had repeated biopsies that show very little/no progression of the cancer. The biopsies themselves are not risk free (nor terribly pleasant if truth be told) but at the relatively young age when I was diagnosed, keeping an eye on it is more important than if I was a couple decades older.

[BandB]

Originally Posted by dhays

Great information. I think that PSA testing is much like oil testing. A single test doesn't give nearly as much useful information as PSA readings over time. The PSA value can also vary from one test to another. My PSA has fluctuated from a low of 6.0 to a high of about 14 and then back to 7.2. However, I've had repeated biopsies that show very little/no progression of the cancer. The biopsies themselves are not risk free (nor terribly pleasant if truth be told) but at the relatively young age when I was diagnosed, keeping an eye on it is more important than if I was a couple decades older.

I'm glad at least yours was discovered early so you could monitor it carefully. It seems like a condition that is very difficult to decide what to do. Seems also like the medical profession has gone back and forth and around in circles on the subject. Perhaps they're approaching a happy medium. Sounds like your approach is.

[Fletcher500]

Not a Doctor, but the comments regarding the stool test being a 85 percent less accurate than a scope are not entirely true. The testing accuracy at a lab is actually very high now. But agree, it appears the scope is still the most bullet proof method. Can't run from genetics.

[Gmarr]

I’ve had em all- ever since “one time” waking a little earlier than I would have preferred, I offer the anaesthesiologist a tip if I slumber until the recovery room! 30 years ago, my mother called it the “silver stallion” and there was NO knocking you out! Did that one too

[bgillroy]

Cologuard test Google it

[MichaelB1969]

When I got my first prostate exam my doctor said to just relax and he put one hand on my shoulder while doing the exam. He then said "If you feel both of my hands on your shoulders while I'm doing this that's when you should be concerned."

My doctor is bit of a wise guy.