Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Draft Guidelines Recommend Against PSA Screening: USPSTF Review
Medscape ^ | 10/13/11 | Zosia Chustecka

Posted on 10/25/2011 10:38:07 AM PDT by dangerdoc

Clinical Context

Few topics in the field of preventive medicine are contentious as prostate cancer screening. Widespread screening for prostate cancer has had a remarkable effect on the epidemiology of this tumor, as demonstrated in a study by Welch and Albertsen published in the October 7, 2009, issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Their study found that the introduction of routine prostate cancer screening led to approximately 1.3 million more men being diagnosed with prostate cancer in the United States alone. Men younger than 60 years accounted for most of this surge in cases. The authors estimated that more than 20 additional men would have to be diagnosed with prostate cancer through screening to result in a single case of reduced mortality risk from prostate cancer.

These findings are fairly pessimistic regarding the value of prostate cancer screening. The current study commissioned by the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality provides a more complete review of important issues in screening for prostate cancer.

Study Synopsis and Perspective The US Preventive Services Task Force issue draft recommendations against routine screening for prostate cancer using the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test in the United States, where it is currently used more than in any other country in the world. As a result, prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in American men.

The USPSTF draft recommendation against routine screening with the PSA test was to have been published October 11 in the Annals of Internal Medicine, but the entire draft paper was leaked and posted October 6 on the Cancer Letter Web site, in "an egregious breach of our embargo and media policies," according to the journal. The news has since been widely disseminated on the Internet; as a result, the journal published the paper early.

The USPSTF already recommends against routine PSA screening in men older than 75 years. In the new draft recommendation, it extends this to all men. It now recommends against routine screening in men younger than 75 years, giving this a "D" rating, which means "there is moderate or high certainty that the service has no benefit or that the harms outweigh the benefits."

The news is likely to spark a furor in medical circles, not unlike the outcry that followed the USPSTF's recommendation in 2009 against routine mammography screening for breast cancer in women younger than 50 years. This provoked outrage from some breast cancer experts, patient advocates, and professional societies, with accusations that this was a move toward the "rationing" of healthcare.

Angry reactions to the latest news have already begun. The "decision of no confidence on the PSA test by the US government condemns tens of thousands of men to die," said Skip Lockwood, CEO of ZERO, the Project to End Prostate Cancer. ZERO is sponsored by many organizations with a stake in prostate cancer, such as Abbott, Beckman Coulter, Accuray, CyberKnife, Dendreon, and the American Urological Association (AUA).

Based on Reviews of Trials

The recommended change is based on a review of 5 randomized trials of screening and 3 trials and 23 cohort studies of treatments. Included in the review were the 2 largest trials of PSA screening, which reported conflicting results, the USPSTF notes. The European study found a reduction in mortality after 9 years of screening, but the American trial, which had high crossover and contamination rates, found no reduction in mortality after 10 years of screening, as previously reported by Medscape Medical News.

The review also noted that treatment for prostate cancer, such as prostatectomy and radiation, is associated with risks for problems such as erectile dysfunction, urinary incontinence, and bowel dysfunction.

The USPTSF concludes that "after about 10 years, PSA-based screening results in small or no reduction in prostate-cancer-specific mortality and is associated with harms related to subsequent evaluation and treatments, some of which may be unnecessary."

Delay in Announcement

This recommendation has been a long time coming, according to reports in the October 7 issue of the Cancer Letter and in the New York Times magazine. They assert that the timing of the release of this recommendation was influenced by political considerations. According to these reports, the task force first voted to recommend against routine PSA screening back in November 2009, but this "caused a violent political firestorm," and subsequent follow-up meetings were cancelled. The final vote was taken in March. After this, a paper summarizing the recommendation was submitted to the Annals of Internal Medicine, where is it expected to appear next week.

PSA Test is Not Specific

The main problems with the PSA test are that it is not specific for prostate cancer and it cannot differentiate between aggressive and indolent forms of the disease.

"It cannot distinguish cancer that will never make a difference in a man's lifetime from cancers that will make a difference," so might prompt men to undergo aggressive treatment unnecessarily, Virginia Moyer, MD, MPH, chair of the USPTSF panel that made the recommendation, stated in an interview yesterday with Bloomberg News. "So you go from being a guy who feels fine and who is potentially one of the majority who would never have known they had this disease, to being a guy who wears adult diapers," she said. Dr. Moyer is a professor of pediatrics at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas.

The PSA test is "hardly more effective than a coin toss," said Richard Ablin, PhD, research professor of pathology at the University of Arizona College of Medicine in Tucson. Dr. Ablin discovered PSA in 1970. Using this test to screen for prostate cancer in the general population has been a "hugely expensive public health disaster," he wrote in an opinion piece in the New York Times last year.

"Drug companies continue peddling the tests, and advocacy groups push 'prostate cancer awareness' by encouraging men to get screened," he wrote. "The medical community must confront reality and stop the inappropriate use of PSA screening," he stated. "Doing so would save billions of dollars and rescue millions of men from unnecessary, debilitating treatment."

Although PSA testing is recognized as being imperfect, it is the only test for prostate cancer that is widely available, and it does provide information that can be useful, proponents point out. One of the professional bodies that has long supported the use of the test, the AUA, emphasizes that it should not be used on its own, but needs to be combined with other information (such as family history).

The AUA issued a statement in reaction to the new USPSTF recommendations: "We are concerned that the Task Force's recommendation will ultimately do more harm than good to the many men at risk for prostate cancer, both here in the United States and around the world."

"The AUA's current clinical recommendations support use of the PSA test, and it is our feeling that, when interpreted appropriately, the PSA test provides important information in the diagnosis, pretreatment staging or risk assessment, and posttreatment monitoring of prostate cancer patients," according to the statement.

"Not all prostate cancers require active treatment and not all prostate cancers are life-threatening," the statement points out, and the decision of whether to proceed to active treatment or whether surveillance is an option needs to be discussed in detail with the patient.

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality supported this study. Author disclosure information is available on the Annals of Internal Medicine Web site.

Ann Intern Med. Published online October 7, 2011.

TOPICS: Health/Medicine
KEYWORDS: prostate; prostatecancer; psascreening; psatest
Ok ladies, it looks like the preventative medicine task force isn't driven by mysogeny
1 posted on 10/25/2011 10:38:10 AM PDT by dangerdoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: dangerdoc

I read an article about a decade ago where the author (a specialist) said that the test does more harm than good. I’m 58 and have not had a physical since I was in my 20’s and have no plans to get one. If something really bad happens, I die. Life is a mist.

Philippians 1:21
For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain.

2 posted on 10/25/2011 10:41:51 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangerdoc

...and it appears that specialist that I read in the last century was correct, or, at the very least, is now in good company.

3 posted on 10/25/2011 10:43:48 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

I’m not afraid of dying but I do want to be healthy until I die.

A stroke that doesn’t kill you can be worse than death. I would recommend some routine maintanence rather than completely ignoring the machine.

4 posted on 10/25/2011 10:45:16 AM PDT by dangerdoc (see post #6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dangerdoc

So, when you get prostate pain and are not sure if it is prostatitis or what, and the doc has had his finger up your rear end and says “yep it’s swollen all right” and they give you a round of antibiotics and the thing’s still the size of a honeydue in 6 weeks and it feels like that too, what’s the next step? Biopsy?

5 posted on 10/25/2011 10:52:55 AM PDT by Puddleglum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Puddleglum

The recommendation is for routine screening, i.e. a guy with no symptoms walking down the street.

The recommendation is not for workup of symptoms or swelling.

6 posted on 10/25/2011 11:00:05 AM PDT by dangerdoc (see post #6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: All

I posted this article mostly because I was curious if it would get the same kind of violent reaction that their recommendations on mammograms recieved.

I suspected that few would care even though prostate cancer is about as prevalent in men as breast cancer is in women.

7 posted on 10/25/2011 11:45:15 AM PDT by dangerdoc (see post #6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Click the Pic               Thank you, JoeProBono

Gary and Harriet Leave the Reception in Their Honeymoon Shells

Follow the Exciting Adventures of Gary the Snail!

Abolish FReepathons
Go Monthly

If you sign up
A sponsor will donate $10

8 posted on 10/25/2011 11:52:24 AM PDT by TheOldLady (FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: dangerdoc

I get physicals, but most men die with prostate cancer, not from it.

9 posted on 10/25/2011 2:50:59 PM PDT by goseminoles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangerdoc
The recommendation is for routine screening, i.e. a guy with no symptoms walking down the street. The recommendation is not for workup of symptoms or swelling.

But if they do not have that a history of that individual's baseline readings to compare against, a PSA test taken after complaint of symptoms will not mean much (except against that person's demographic, which is a pretty wildly varying number).

10 posted on 10/25/2011 3:12:09 PM PDT by Puddleglum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Puddleglum

I’m not sure what you are trying to say.

Outside of screening the PSA is usually used in monitoring treatment of known prostate cancer and they are just watching trends.

11 posted on 10/25/2011 6:48:08 PM PDT by dangerdoc (see post #6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: goseminoles

I was happy when they recommended not testing older men, the exact age escapes me at this moment. It was cruel to diagnose and then treat elderly men in destructive ways for a disease that was unlikely to cause them harm.

For younger men it gets more complicated. They are more likely to have aggressive cancer if they have cancer, but are very unlikely to have cancer in the first place. You have to do many more biopsies with risk and sonograms with cost to find those rare cancers.

Nobody in my family has lived long enough to get diagnosed with prostate cancer so I had planned on skipping the PSA all together.

That was a long winded way of saying, yes I agree with you.

12 posted on 10/25/2011 7:03:07 PM PDT by dangerdoc (see post #6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

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
Topics · Post Article

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