In the US, asymptomatic people 50+ are routinely screened for colon cancer with a much more expensive and invasive process. A cheap blood test for another major killer seems pretty reasonable to add in.
Are we still doing colonoscopies on "everybody", or are we pivoting to the mail-in stool sample tests? FWIW, my health plan sent my wife and I the mail-in kits last year.
There is still debate on that. Colonoscopies are expensive and invasive, but they are the "gold standard". A colonoscopy is every 10 years, the mail in sample is every 3 (check with your doctor to see what is right for you). The mail in sample is not as sensitive as well - I used to know someone who died of colon cancer 1 year after a negative mail in sample, a colonoscopy would have saved her life. If the mail in sample finds anything they send you to a colonoscopy anyway (but you get to the front of the waiting list) to fix the problem.
For people at low risk the mail in sample is likely good enough, and since a colonoscopy has other risks (including kill you) may even be on balance be better for those. However anyone with a higher risk should get colonoscopies. Where the line between low and high risk is though is very much up for debate.
The above is general discussion. For medical advice talk to your doctor - who will know the right questions to ask to figure out what is right for you.
Depends. there are several different tests. Many are testing a for more things. I'm pretty sure the person I knew above who died a year latter had a basic test and we don't know if the better ones would have caught hers in time.
Don’t forget about skin cancers. Screening for it is easily among the least invasive and least uncomfortable screening procedures for any kind of cancer, yet many people miss the opportunity for an early diagnosis
