Just rcvd my cologuard kit today. I was wondering why it was such a bigger box than the FIT test, and then I watched the instructions video. You send back a tiny sample on a wandlike thingy in a vial like FIT, along with what can only be described as a poop in a pot! Can’t hardly wait.
LOL rockvillemom!
They sent you a poop catcher? 
A large collection jar/thermos and bottle of preservative to add to it. Jar goes in ziplock bag in box.
Directions and video are pretty funny. Don’t drink the preservative. Make sure the jar lid is screwed on tightly. Don’t remove the glued in ziplock bag from the return box. Can you imagine the job of receiving and unpacking these returned boxes?
That explains the price!! Lol. Lots of labor. 
I dread this. I’m due in a year for my first one. I know of two people that I worked with that had their bowels punctured by the procedure and one of them died. The other was on medical leave for 4 months trying to recover. And then there’s the fact that I eat small meals every 3 hours. I don’t think I can go that long without food.
@am5796
On average. Sometimes they grow faster. And sometimes polyps are missed on colonoscopy, especially right-side polyps.
From my post #1731:
I’m sure it feels good to go home from the colonoscopy with a clean bill of health and to figure you are good to go for 10 years… but the miss rate means that simply is not true. I don’t know why the standard recommendation isn’t for a combination of FIT testing with colonoscopy – certainly there’s no financial barrier. (The cynic in me thinks that’s exactly the problem — there is a financial incentive on the provider end that favors the more costly option – see https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/health/colonoscopies-explain-why-us-leads-the-world-in-health-expenditures.html )
Overall, routine screening colonoscopies do seem to be more effective than stool testing, but not by a lot.
Here’s a recent study that shows, “receipt of screening colonoscopy, compared with no endoscopic screening, was associated with a 67% lower risk of death from colorectal cancer overall, a 65% lower risk of death from right-colon cancer and a 75% lower risk from left-colon/rectum cancer.” Effectiveness of screening colonoscopy in reducing the risk of death from right and left colon cancer: a large community-based study, https://gut.bmj.com/content/67/2/291
How does that compare to FIT testing? “The actual effectiveness in reducing CRC mortality attributed to the FIT screening was 62%” Effectiveness of fecal immunochemical testing in reducing colorectal cancer mortality from the One Million Taiwanese Screening Program, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4676309/ (Note, this was a study of biennial testing – other studies indicate that annual testing increases FIT efficacy).
So how much is that added 5% mortality-reducing benefit worth? In terms of health care dollars spent, I’d think it would be a hard case to make. At an individual level, it’s a very different question. Obviously, for the small fraction of patients who would develop cancer, it is a hugely important. But the American Cancer Society reports, “Overall, the lifetime risk of developing colorectal cancer is: about 1 in 22 (4.49%) for men and 1 in 24 (4.15%) for women.” https://www.cancer.org/cancer/colon-rectal-cancer/about/key-statistics.html
My math may be off, but if I take that figure of 4.15% for myself (being female) and apply that against the 65%/62% figures-- then I am seeing a 2.8% vs. 2.5% risk reduction differential between colonoscopy & FIT testing.
@cbh088
Then, unless you have specific risk factor, go for the FIT testing. It will take you 10 minutes to do get an at home sample. No pain, no prep, no dietary concerns. Just minor ickiness of taking a sample of your own poo.
People who dread and are fearful of colonoscopy are highly likely to put it off. Months become years. The FIT test is kind of iffy if only done once, but if done regularly every year, the basic risks of a false negative are mitigated. And in any case, FIT tests that are done each year are way, way more effective than colonoscopies that haven’t been done because the patient is afraid to schedule them. The most effective screening test it the one you actually get.
Be aware that if FIT returns a positive result, a colonoscopy is done as follows up. However, this means by that colonoscopy is done only when there is an additional known risk (indicated by the positive FIT), rather than unconditionally. For those concerned about the medical risks of colonoscopy, this may be a preferable choice.
Your personal acquaintance of complications is completely skewed with reality. I’m not saying you are imagining it, just that the actual rate of serious complications is far far less than your personal experience would indicate.
First of all, the human body doesn’t need food every three hours (unless you are on an insulin pump or have some kind of serious pathology), and second, you don’t go without food, you go without solid food for a day. You can have broths and clear liquids that contain sugars to keep your blood sugar up. Once you begin drinking the prep, you pretty much lose the desire to eat. I would just schedule your procedure first thing in the morning.
But if you are that against doing it and have absolutely no risk factors, do the FIT instead, with the knowledge that if it shows something that needs to be examined, you’ll need to do the colonoscopy after all.
I had an experienced doctor tell me you need to get colonoscopy done by an experienced doctor because there can be puncture damages. I got one or two benign polyps when I did colonoscopy (also endoscopy) 6 months ago. No problem with Suprep.
I’m aware that my knowledge of people with complications doesn’t match the general population. It doesn’t make it easier on my state of mind. I’m also aware I don’t physically need food every 3 hours. It’s just what I’m used to. And based on past experience, the prep likely won’t diminish my desire to eat solid food. But trust me when I say I know colon cancer is far worse. It just doesn’t make me dread it any less.
There is so much volume to the preps and the required fluid intake that goes along with it. I can’t imagine wanting anything to eat while you feel like you are about to explode from the fluid volume. I’ve done the low volume preps, but you still have to drink a lot of clear liquid with them. Of course, there will always be that exception. I just personally can’t imagine it.
No one likes the lead up to a colonoscopy. But in the end, it’s one day of your life, and like everything, it eventually passes.
Well… it definitely “passes” from your “end”! 
Look, I was really reluctant to have a colonoscopy. My concern wasn’t just perforation (I know someone whose bowel was perforated during colonoscopy) but the fact that the colonoscope can’t be sterilized, only sanitized. I finally realized that the complication rate was lower than the risk of colon cancer, so I had it done.
I actually wasn’t hungry the day of liquid diet before the procedure. Clear chicken broth and sweetened juices and jello kept me satisfied.
Deleted comment.
Here is some info about risks of complication of colonoscopy:
from https://www.verywellhealth.com/what-are-the-risks-of-a-colonoscopy-1942559
The main problem with this statement, “a person’s average risk of developing colon cancer is higher than having a complication after a colonoscopy” is that it doesn’t factor in alternative screening options. That is, if colonoscopy were the only option for screening, then the argument about risk of complication vs. risk of developing cancer would be very compelling.
The other mathematical problem in the quote I pulled above is that the complication rate seems to be reported on a per-procedure basis, while the cancer risk is reported on a lifetime basis – but those who undergo routine screening colonoscopies will have multiple procedures during their lifetime. I think that is one reason why the general recommendation is a 10-year-interval between screening colonoscopies. Greater frequency of routine screening probably changes the equation to the point where risk of complications would exceed risk of cancer.
https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/RecommendationStatementFinal/colorectal-cancer-screening2 has the table comparing outcomes for various screening methods at the bottom.
Colorectal cancer deaths prevented per 1000 screened:
Colonoscopy every 10 years: 24
FIT every year: 22
FIT-DNA every 3 years: 20
Harms from screening and follow-up per 1000 screened:
Colonoscopy every 10 years: 15
FIT every year: 10
FIT-DNA every 3 years: 9
Lifetime expected number of colonoscopies per 1000 screened:
Colonoscopy every 10 years: 4049
FIT every year: 1757
FIT-DNA every 3 years: 1714
Compared to FIT every year, colonoscopy every 10 years gives a 0.2% lower chance of dying from colorectal cancer, but a 0.5% higher chance of harms. Obviously, not all harms are fatal, so it is not necessarily obvious whether the 0.5% higher chance of harms is a worthwhile tradeoff for a 0.2% lower chance of dying from colorectal cancer. It may depend on whether you know that you are higher or lower than average risk of colorectal cancer based on other risk factors (e.g. family or personal medical history, diet, exercise, alcohol, tobacco, obesity, etc.).
Articles on the risk rate of complications of colonoscopy:
https://www.asge.org/docs/default-source/education/practice_guidelines/doc-56321364-c4d8-4742-8158-55b6bef2a568.pdf
https://www.medpagetoday.com/gastroenterology/generalgastroenterology/56204
Why are we spending so much time focusing on the risks of colonoscopy? The risk is very very small and the payoff is very very big. Assuming you use a doctor who is experienced and you’re having it done in a facility that does these all the time, you’re reducing your risk as much as possible.
Forty years ago, it was recommended that I undergo open heart surgery to have a congenital heart defect repaired. I read that the mortality rate for that type of surgery was 1%. When I asked the second-opinion doc what he thought about that, he totally shrugged it off, since I would be having the surgery done in a major NYC teaching hospital by a totally experienced surgeon. Sometimes the statistical risks aren’t the risks that we, as wise consumers of medical services, actually face.
I didn’t realize I was the exception in finding the fasting part of the prep to be a significant difficulty. Yeah, of course I did it, but it was not easy and I would not minimize that part of it for some people.