Foodconsumer.org

 
USCards.com Bookmark Us
All Food, Diet and Health News 
 
 Misc. News
 Must-Read News
 Letter to Editor
 Featured Products
 Recalls & Alerts
 Consumer Affair
 Non-food Things
 Health Tips
 Interesting Sites
 
 Diet & Health
 Heart & Blood
 Cancer
 Body Weight
 Children & Women
 General Health
 Nutrition
 
 Food & Health
 Food Chemicals
 Biological Agents
 Cooking & Packing
 Technologies
 Agri. & Environ.
 Laws & Politics
 
 General Health
 Drug News
 Diseases
 Mental Health
 Infectious Disease
 Environment
 Lifestyle
 Government
 Other News
 
 Food Consumer
 FC News & Others
Search





Search Consumer Health


Add to Google
Add to My Yahoo
Newsfeed

foodconsumer.org news feed
Su bmit news[release]



More than 100 credit cards available at uscards.com from uscards.com, you can pick more than 100 credit cards

Misc. News : Non-food Things Last Updated: Oct 6, 2008 - 12:00:27 PM


Colon cancer screenings may not pay off and could pose harm to some
By Yale University
Dec 18, 2007 - 9:18:22 PM

E.mail t.his a.rticle
 P.rinter f.riendly p.age
Get n.ewsletter
 
   

Colon cancer screenings may not pay off and could pose harm to some

R. Scott Braithwaite of Yale University

Even though current guidelines advocate colorectal cancer screenings for those with severe illnesses, they may bring little benefit and may actually pose harm, according to a recent study by Yale School of Medicine researchers published in the Archives of Internal Medicine.

The study offers a new approach for assessing who is likely to benefit from a screening so that screening recommendations can be tailored more effectively to individual patients.

First author R. Scott Braithwaite, M.D., and his colleagues developed a new method of evaluating medical screening tests like colonoscopy, called the “payoff time,” which is the minimum amount of time it takes for the benefits from a test to exceed its harms (i.e., its complications and side effects). The method can also be applied to patients of any age and illness.

To estimate the payoff time for using colonoscopy to screen for colorectal cancer, the team focused on two patient groups that included 50-year-old men with HIV, and 60-year-old women with congestive heart failure.

Braithwaite said the payoff time for colorectal cancer screening was as long as five years for 50-year-old men and as long as 2.9 years for 60-year-old women. Because patients with severe congestive heart failure have a life expectancy of less than 2.9 years, they were more likely to be harmed than benefited by colorectal cancer screening, say the researchers, whereas patients with HIV have a life expectancy of greater than five years, so they were likely to benefit from colorectal cancer screening.

“This issue is only becoming increasingly important as pay-for-performance and physician ‘report cards’ encourage clinicians to offer screening to everyone, regardless of individual benefit,” said Braithwaite, assistant professor of medicine at Yale School of Medicine and at the VA Connecticut Healthcare System. “This may have the unintended consequence of harming patients with severe illnesses.”

Braithwaite added that the “cocktail” of therapies that have revolutionized HIV care have increased life expectancy so much that screening guidelines now apply to patients with HIV.

###
Contact: Karen N. Peart
karen.peart@yale.edu
203-432-1326
Yale University




© 2004-2008 by foodconsumer.org unless otherwise specified

Top of Page




Google
 
Web foodconsumer.org

Search Consumer-friendly Health Sites












Do you know vitamin C lowers blood pressure?

disclaimer | advertising | jobs | privacy | abou t us | newsletter | Submit news/articles
link partners: | shopseek.com | infoplus.com | foodregister.com | uscards.com | Get Viagra Now | DaytonaCPA.com |
© Copyright 2004 - 2008 foodconsumer.org All rights reserved

Disclaimer: What's published on this website should be considered opinions of respective writers only and foodconsumer.org which has no political agenda nor commercial ambition may or may not endorse any opinion of any writer. No accuracy is guaranteed although writers are doing their best to provide accurate information only. The information on this website should not be construed as medical advice and should not be used to replace professional services provided by qualified or licensed health care workers. The site serves only as a platform for writers and readers to share knowledge, experience, and information from the scientific community, organizations, government agencies and individuals. Foodconsumer.org encourages readers who have had medical conditions to consult with licensed health care providers - conventional and or alternative medical practitioners.