Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cancer Screening in Seniors Yields Few Benefits
Medpage Today ^ | Aug 18, 2014 | Charles Bankhead

Posted on 08/18/2014 6:42:51 PM PDT by Innovative

Screening older patients for cancer provided minimal benefit at considerable cost and increased use of invasive procedures, reported investigators in two separate studies.

"It is particularly important to question screening strategies for older persons," Gross continued. "Patients with a shorter life expectancy have less time to develop clinically significant cancers after a screening test and are more likely to die from noncancer health problems after a cancer diagnosis."

(Excerpt) Read more at medpagetoday.com ...


TOPICS: Health/Medicine; Science
KEYWORDS: cancer; cancerscreening; cancertests; deathpanels; government; medical; medicalcare; medicare; medicine; obamacare; seniors; socialsecurity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-64 next last
Did you notice that ever since Obamacare has become the law of the land, there are more and more studies that "prove" that people, especially older ones shouldn't be tested -- let them go and die quietly, instead of utilize expensive medical care.

It's just an initial stage of "death panels".

1 posted on 08/18/2014 6:42:51 PM PDT by Innovative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tired of Taxes

Cancer Warriors Ping


2 posted on 08/18/2014 6:43:50 PM PDT by Innovative ("Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." -- Vince Lombardi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

Sure. Cancer therapy isn’t worth much in “seniors,” either.

They should just take the blue pill. Dr. Obola said so.


3 posted on 08/18/2014 6:44:33 PM PDT by Steely Tom (How do you feel about robbing Peter's robot?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

Death panels at work.


4 posted on 08/18/2014 6:45:34 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Innovative
And don't miss this paragraph:

"A consensus exists within the medical and scientific communities that routine cancer screening is unlikely to benefit people who have limited life expectancy. The consensus is reflected in clinical guidelines and more recently in the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation's Choosing Wisely program."

Sarah Palin was right about deathpanels

5 posted on 08/18/2014 6:45:56 PM PDT by Innovative ("Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." -- Vince Lombardi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

You are right. It is so obvious to me.


6 posted on 08/18/2014 6:46:26 PM PDT by PghBaldy (12/14 - 930am -rampage begins... 12/15 - 1030am - Obama's advance team scouts photo-op locations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

But there are no DEATH PANELS in Obamacare, you racist hillbillies!


7 posted on 08/18/2014 6:46:48 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("The man who damns money obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it earned it." --Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

I agree with this. Doctors wanted to schedule my 97 YO mother for a colonoscopy — no symptoms, no problems in that area. Chance of perforation would be high. I said HELL NO.


8 posted on 08/18/2014 6:47:13 PM PDT by steve86 ( Acerbic by nature, not nurture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

Go die, unless you have significant assets the I.R.S. and TOTALITARIANCARE can drain while you are still alive. Then, you can die.


9 posted on 08/18/2014 6:47:56 PM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

yup. anything they can do to lower fedgov costs


10 posted on 08/18/2014 6:48:36 PM PDT by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

Let one of these liberal writers come down with cancer and watch what they demand.


11 posted on 08/18/2014 6:49:22 PM PDT by mountainlion (Live well for those that did not make it back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

Who gives an Ess what studies show. It’s my money, I’ll spend it on tests & screening, if I want to. These interventionists need to F Off.


12 posted on 08/18/2014 6:50:13 PM PDT by 4Liberty (Obama is O'Bryan. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUoPNpa9Rrw)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

Exactly what age is “older” to these medical bureaucrats?

55?


13 posted on 08/18/2014 6:50:15 PM PDT by headstamp 2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steve86

“I agree with this. Doctors wanted to schedule my 97 YO mother for a colonoscopy — no symptoms, no problems in that area. Chance of perforation would be high. I said HELL NO.”

Common sense should prevail — but the bottom line it should be between the doctor and the patient, not some government guidelines.


14 posted on 08/18/2014 6:50:22 PM PDT by Innovative ("Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." -- Vince Lombardi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

“...unlikely to benefit people who have limited life expectancy...”

A BRILLIANT “scientific” assessment to rationalize restricting testing or care.


15 posted on 08/18/2014 6:52:06 PM PDT by G Larry (Which of Obama's policies do you think I'd support if he were white?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: steve86
“I agree with this. Doctors wanted to schedule my 97 YO mother for a colonoscopy — no symptoms, no problems in that area. Chance of perforation would be high. I said HELL NO.”

According to the article, they are talking about 65 years and older. That's a lot younger than your 97 year old mother.

16 posted on 08/18/2014 6:52:36 PM PDT by FR_addict
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: headstamp 2

I think anyone who might actually have an expensive condition, is “older” and unworthy.

“The age analysis did not include prostate cancer screening, as the United States Preventive Services Task Force has recommended against routine PSA screening at any age.”


17 posted on 08/18/2014 6:53:20 PM PDT by Innovative ("Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." -- Vince Lombardi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

That’s funny. I hear that’s true in England for men of all ages.


18 posted on 08/18/2014 6:53:36 PM PDT by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

Yes! We don’t need PSA tests, mammograms, MRI’s, CAT scans, ovarian cancer checks, dermatology checkups looking for melanoma.

I mean, detecting a cancer when the patient is 63 may only lead to expensive treatment, extending that person’s life for another 30 unproductive years. Detecting a cancer when the disease is advanced means that the now 66 year old can get cheap palliative care in a hospice.

At least we don’t hear about “useless eaters”, yet.


19 posted on 08/18/2014 6:55:54 PM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion

“Let one of these liberal writers come down with cancer and watch what they demand.”

The poster boy for nationalized healthcare in the United States, Teddy Kennedy, went to Duke University hospital for his brain cancer treatment instead of locally in DC. His cancer had a low survival rate yet he pulled out all of the stops for expensive radiation treatment at Duke. In the New York Times article about Kennedy’s treatment (linked below) one sentence stood out, “These days, with a focus on controlling health care costs, it might seem that limiting patients’ options and restricting treatments that add maybe a few months of life might be a good place to start. But health economists say that would be a terrible idea.” Of course they are talking about one of the elites, not the little people.


20 posted on 08/18/2014 6:58:09 PM PDT by Soul of the South (Yesterday is gone. Today will be what we make of it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Soul of the South

Link to the NY Times article on Ted Kennedy’s cancer treatment: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/health/28brain.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


21 posted on 08/18/2014 6:58:59 PM PDT by Soul of the South (Yesterday is gone. Today will be what we make of it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

In a couple of years Obamacare won’t pay for treatment anyway, because the death panels will prohibit it.


22 posted on 08/18/2014 7:02:09 PM PDT by kaehurowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

Just checked and there are a LOT of articles on that — they are all trying to “educate” people to not get tested.

https://news.google.com/news?ncl=dOUnUi0wpFua3jMvvN_QWqvPKaXOM&q=cancer+screening&lr=English&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eLDyU4v2Ks7bigK1xoDABA&ved=0CCUQqgIwAQ

I wouldn’t be surprised, in fact, I am quite suspicious that doctors are privately being told to NOT test or prescribe medications for “older” or “undeserving” people. Pay attention, you might notice this trend as well.


23 posted on 08/18/2014 7:05:32 PM PDT by Innovative ("Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." -- Vince Lombardi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: kaehurowing

They’ll probably pay for an injection to put sick people out of their misery quickly — and save $$$.


24 posted on 08/18/2014 7:07:11 PM PDT by Innovative ("Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." -- Vince Lombardi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

“At least we don’t hear about “useless eaters”, yet.”

Well, not in those exact words, but this is exactly the meaning of such guidelines.


25 posted on 08/18/2014 7:08:58 PM PDT by Innovative ("Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." -- Vince Lombardi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

“At least we don’t hear about “useless eaters”, yet.”

Well, not in those exact words, but this is exactly the meaning of such guidelines.


26 posted on 08/18/2014 7:09:16 PM PDT by Innovative ("Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." -- Vince Lombardi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

I suspect that disincentives are built into ACA insurance guidelines. A younger person will pay less for diagnostics than an older one. I’ll ask around, but I’ve found that libs are very reluctant to disclose details of their health costs, lol!


27 posted on 08/18/2014 7:10:56 PM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: steve86

You just want her to croak so you can have her money!


28 posted on 08/18/2014 7:18:16 PM PDT by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: FR_addict
Most of the commenters here are outright rejecting cost-benefit analysis, as though it is some kind of devil's work. But one can't ignore the costs and focus only on potential benefits. We can't all have every test every day nor would we want to. It is very important to note that costs are not just dollar costs, but medical complications as well. The more often you do an invasive screening (at any age) the more likely it is that a medical complication will arise.

The study looked at frequency of screening over different patient ages and what the cost-benefit would be of shorter or longer screening intervals for different age patients. Most people here would agree that scheduling ordinary people for a colonoscopy or pap smear every 30 days would be excessive at age 50 or 70. Why? because the dollar costs would be high, the chance of an infection or perforation for a given patient say after a year or 12 colonoscopies would be quite high, and the screening benefit compared to say a three year scheduling interval would be modest.

One of the things the study looked at was 3 year vs. 5 year vs. no screening at all.

As compared with no screening, guideline-based screening colonoscopy prevented 14 cases of colorectal cancer and 7.7 cancer-specific deaths, and resulted in 63.1 life years gained per 1,000 beneficiaries screened. In contrast, a 5-year screening interval led to prevention of an additional 1.7 cases of colorectal cancer and 0.6 cancer deaths and a gain of 5.8 life years per 1,000 beneficiaries screened.

"To achieve this relatively small added benefit, 783 additional colonoscopies had to be performed, causing 1.3 additional complications," the authors noted.

Reducing the screening interval to 3 years and increasing the duration of screening to age 85 prevented fewer cancers and cancer deaths and further reduced the life years gained per 1,000 patients screened, they added.

I don't see the satanic intent here, just realistic analysis. Also didn't see where anyone is advocating that people be prevented from paying for more frequent screenings if they care to.

Personally, I get none.

29 posted on 08/18/2014 7:22:11 PM PDT by steve86 ( Acerbic by nature, not nurture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: steve86
Also didn't see where anyone is advocating that people be prevented from paying for more frequent screenings if they care to.

You need to get up to speed. Any physician who provides screening that is not mandated will be first fined and then charged with breaking the law.

30 posted on 08/18/2014 7:25:03 PM PDT by ladyjane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

bookmark


31 posted on 08/18/2014 7:26:33 PM PDT by dadfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ladyjane

“Any physician who provides screening that is not mandated will be first fined and then charged with breaking the law.”

Exactly — I think it’s already going on and it will only get worse.


32 posted on 08/18/2014 7:28:21 PM PDT by Innovative ("Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." -- Vince Lombardi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Innovative
"Patients with a shorter life expectancy have less time to develop clinically significant cancers after a screening test and are more likely to die from noncancer health problems after a cancer diagnosis."...well, that's the reassuring message my GP gave me as he informed me that at 76 this would probably be the last year I was scheduled for a PSA test - actually he went on to say the virtually all men have some form of slow-growing prostate cancer from about their early sixties on, and that if science could magically eliminate all other forms of fatalities, all men would probably die from prostate cancer by about the time they reached 120 - I sure went home feeling good that day......
33 posted on 08/18/2014 7:28:46 PM PDT by Intolerant in NJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dalereed
She had a colonoscopy about 20 years ago and said "never again".

Actually, the longer she lives the larger her estate will probably be due to gov pensions. Neither here nor there to me though -- I haven't been in a spending mood for about 35 years and am not likely to ever get back into that habit.

34 posted on 08/18/2014 7:29:02 PM PDT by steve86 ( Acerbic by nature, not nurture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: steve86

Haven’t you heard that “there are liars, d&*n liars, and statisticians” — i.e. you can prove anything with statistics.

And you might view things differently if you were one of the ones whose cancer is discovered too late, when it would have been curable, had it been diagnosed early.


35 posted on 08/18/2014 7:30:47 PM PDT by Innovative ("Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." -- Vince Lombardi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Intolerant in NJ

“Any physician who provides screening that is not mandated will be first fined and then charged with breaking the law.”

One “little problem” with this is that they can’t tell whether it’s slow of fast growing until it’s too late.


36 posted on 08/18/2014 7:32:11 PM PDT by Innovative ("Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." -- Vince Lombardi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Innovative; AllAmericanGirl44; Armen Hareyan; B4Ranch; Ban Draoi Marbh Draoi; bayareablues; ...
Here we go again...

CANCER WARRIORS PING

This is a ping list for cancer survivors and caregivers to share information. If you would like your name added to or removed from this ping list, please tell us in the comments section at this link (click here). (For the most updated list of names, click on the same link and go to the last comment.)

37 posted on 08/18/2014 7:32:39 PM PDT by Tired of Taxes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ladyjane
You need to get up to speed.

LOL No, you do. I'm not generally referring to primary care providers anyway. There are commercial operations around here that provide all manner of screenings for cash or credit. These private operations are in no way affected by ACA or other health insurance-related legislation (assuming you didn't just make that up -- I'm not so sure).

38 posted on 08/18/2014 7:34:10 PM PDT by steve86 ( Acerbic by nature, not nurture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: steve86

At 93, you probably don’t want to do a colonoscopy.

But for those younger who hate the notion of colonoscopy, I read there is a highly accurate stool test for colon cancer.

FDA approves more reliable at-home screening test for colon cancer

http://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/health-wellness/2014/08/17/fda-approves-more-reliable-home-screening-test-for-colon-cancer/WesXPKWAbJUH1ZsASkS1rK/story.html

“Cologuard detected 92 percent of colorectal cancers and 42 percent of advanced adenomas, according to the FDA,”


39 posted on 08/18/2014 7:35:06 PM PDT by Innovative ("Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." -- Vince Lombardi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Intolerant in NJ

Sorry — I don’t know how I messed up, my post 36 was not meant for you.


40 posted on 08/18/2014 7:36:22 PM PDT by Innovative ("Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." -- Vince Lombardi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

I guess I have to end my participation in the thread if the use of inferential statistics in medical research (my minor in grad school) is being summarily rejected. I don’t stick around anti-science threads in general.


41 posted on 08/18/2014 7:36:43 PM PDT by steve86 ( Acerbic by nature, not nurture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

Actually I think alot of this screening is a good way to guarantee income. Just as I think physicals (”wellness checks” in post-modern PC parlance) are a way to guarantee it. Meaning more expense every year and a way for insurance to get something, too.

I do not see why there is paranoia over this type of conclusion, when the same people usually eschew, rightfully, all the safety-NAZI precepts such as forcing everyone to wear belts and helmets.


42 posted on 08/18/2014 7:40:32 PM PDT by the OlLine Rebel (Common sense is an uncommon virtue./Federal-run medical care is as good as state-run DMVs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

“A consensus exists within the medical and scientific communities that routine cancer screening is unlikely to benefit people who have limited life expectancy. ...”


Unlikely to benefit the Utopian Socialist Society.

Surely it benefits the individual to know. And some cancers can be cured or at least lived with happily for a long time as with a chronic disease.

Each family needs to decide, post screening, whether invasive colon surgery is right for Pops when he is already feeble and frail.

But that is a different subject. They want to cut coverage for the elderly. People are living too long for obamaCare.


43 posted on 08/18/2014 7:41:01 PM PDT by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: steve86

“if the use of inferential statistics in medical research (my minor in grad school) is being summarily rejected.”

It isn’t “summarily rejected” — but I am sure you know too that depending on the data and how it’s analyzed and what is emphasized, erroneous or at least misleading conclusions can be drawn — as well as from overgeneralizations.

FDA shut down the genetic testing outfit “23 and me” which would have helped people identify or at least get an idea of their potential genetic disposition to certain diseases. If people would get such tests, it would help to have people focus on their more vulnerable potential diseases — THIS would be a scientific approach in my opinion.

But the objective here is NOT to heal people, but to save money at the expense of lives.


44 posted on 08/18/2014 7:42:48 PM PDT by Innovative ("Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." -- Vince Lombardi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: steve86

Steve86, this thread isn’t “anti-science.”

For so many years, people were berated if they opted not to undergo screening. Now, ever since the ACA, all of a sudden, we’re being told there’s too much screening. The timing can’t be a coincidence. It’s not about science; it’s about politics.


45 posted on 08/18/2014 7:50:43 PM PDT by Tired of Taxes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: steve86
I agree with this. Doctors wanted to schedule my 97 YO mother for a colonoscopy

That's surprising.

My dad was in his early 70s when he had is most recent colonoscopy and the doctor was iffy on whether he should get another one in five years. He did say that if dad did get one it would likely be his last if they didn't find anything because they were unlikely to treat for colon cancer when he gets into his eighties.

I want my doctor to discuss rational treatment options with me, not just look at Federal Health Form #298320B and say "I am not allowed to treat you. Sorry."

46 posted on 08/18/2014 7:56:58 PM PDT by KarlInOhio (The IRS: either criminally irresponsible in backup procedures or criminally responsible of coverup.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Innovative
Look at 5 year survival rates for breast cancer in the UK where "studies" like in the US said there was no statistical difference in starting mammograms at age 50 rather than 40 as in the US and doing them every two years compared to annually in the US. In the UK 5 years survival rate for breast cancer is 79% compared to 95% in the US. Determining what tests you should be taking and when should be up to you and your doctor, based on your medical and family history not on the recommendation of some government bean counters who never laid eyes on a patient.

My mother died of colon cancer, my sister died of ovarian cancer and my maternal grandmother had breast cancer. Given this added risk, my doctor and I have decided on colonoscopies every 5 years. I want an annual PSA test and if it is elevated consult with a urologist and my doctor to determine the risks and whether or not I should have further tests and what if any treatment I should choose. The idea of using stacks of statistics to determine your medical care is BS.

47 posted on 08/18/2014 8:00:38 PM PDT by The Great RJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steve86
I started having PSA'a, at the instance of my PCP, at age 50. Eight years later, in 2005, I had a PSA of 4.5 - no elevated PSA'a previous to that. A Prostate biopsy disclosed nothing of note. In September of 2007 I had another PSA at the same level and went for another Biopsy. I was diagnosed with Prostate Cancer with a Gleason of 9. Wages of Agent Orange.

I went to Hopkins for a second opinion at the instance of my Urologist - diagnosis confirmed. Traditional Radiation therapy 42X and Hormone therapy - Zolodex.

But for the second PSA, I'd be a dead man. I am greatly concerned at the recent noise I've heard on the news regarding calls for the PSA to be dropped as a routine test for men over 50. But for the PSA and the vigilance of my physicians, I would not have survived to see my daughter graduate from University or to see my 67th birthday, coming up in a few weeks.

May I have your your thoughts on the cost-benefit analysis of my having survived the last seven years?



America demands Justice for the Fallen of Benghazi!

O stranger, tell the Lacedaemonians that we lie here, obedient to their command.

Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. (Isaiah 49:1 KJV)

48 posted on 08/18/2014 8:02:34 PM PDT by ConorMacNessa (HM/2 USN, 3/5 Marines RVN 1969 - St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in Battle!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Steely Tom

Commie sob. Seniors have as much right to live as any.


49 posted on 08/18/2014 8:17:35 PM PDT by patriot08 (NATIVE TEXAN (girl type))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ConorMacNessa
May I have your your thoughts on the cost-benefit analysis of my having survived the last seven years?

Sure, for you personally, great benefit vs. cost. That is an post hoc analysis. I suspect you couldn't have told me that was going to happen in 1997.

Absolutely meaningless for the population at large. If we could know before-the-fact who the "ConorMacNessas" are it would be great. Would avoid having to subject a lot of people to a dubious test that yields way too many false positives.

50 posted on 08/18/2014 8:30:36 PM PDT by steve86 ( Acerbic by nature, not nurture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-64 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson