I just turned 60. Several months ago I had a routine physical exam, lab work, and a colonoscopy. I chose not to have prostate cancer screening. This article suggests that I made a good decision – Prostate Cancer Screening Found to Save Few, if Any, Lives
Both reports were published online on Wednesday by The New England Journal of Medicine. One involved 182,000 men in seven European countries; the other, by the National Cancer Institute, involved nearly 77,000 men at 10 medical centers in the United States. In both, participants were randomly assigned to be screened — or not — with the PSA test, whose initials stand for prostate specific antigen. In each study, the two groups were followed for more than a decade while researchers counted deaths from prostate cancer, asking if screening made a difference.
The European data involved a consortium of studies with different designs. Taken together, the studies found that screening was associated with a 20 percent relative reduction in the prostate cancer death rate. But the number of lives saved was small — 7 fewer prostate cancer deaths for every 10,000 men screened and followed for nine years.
The American study, which had a single design, found no reduction in deaths from prostate cancer after most of the men had been followed for 10 years. Every man has been followed for at least seven years, said Dr. Barnett Kramer, a study co-author at the National Institutes of Health. By seven years, the death rate was 13 percent lower for the unscreened group.
The European study saw no benefit of screening in the first seven years of follow-up.
The reason screening saved so few lives, cancer experts say, is that prostate cancers often grow very slowly, if at all, and most never endanger a man if left alone. But when doctors find an early-stage prostate tumor, they cannot tell with confidence if it will be dangerous so they usually treat all early cancers as if they were life-threatening. As a result, the majority of men, whose early-stage cancers would not harm them, suffer serious effects of cancer therapy but get no benefit. Others, with very aggressive tumors, may not be helped by screening because their cancer has spread by the time it is detected.
Prostate cancer is not the only one that is hard to stop with screening. If the European study is correct, mammography has about the same benefit as the PSA test, said Dr. Michael B. Barry, a prostate cancer researcher at Massachusetts General Hospital who wrote an editorial accompanying the papers. But prostate cancers often are less dangerous than breast cancers, so screening and subsequent therapy can result in more harm.
In the European study, 48 men were told they had prostate cancer, and needlessly treated for it, for every man whose death was prevented. With mammography, about 10 women receive a diagnosis and needless treatment for breast cancer to prevent one death.
I hope that everyone will heed these studies. My friend, and former SGIM President, Michael Barry has an outstanding editorial in this subject in the NEJM early release. Included in his editorial is this paragraph:
After digesting these reports, where do we stand regarding the PSA controversy? Serial PSA screening has at best a modest effect on prostate-cancer mortality during the first decade of follow-up. This benefit comes at the cost of substantial overdiagnosis and overtreatment. It is important to remember that the key question is not whether PSA screening is effective but whether it does more good than harm. For this reason, comparisons of the ERSPC estimates of the effectiveness of PSA screening with, for example, the similarly modest effectiveness of breast-cancer screening cannot be made without simultaneously appreciating the much higher risks of overdiagnosis and overtreatment associated with PSA screening.
I chose not to have prostate cancer screening because I strongly suspected these data. Sometimes the treatment is much worse than the disease.
Related posts:
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
7 Responses to Prostate cancer screening
DB’s Medical Rants » Prostate cancer screening | The Cancer and You Network
March 18th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
[...] Several months ago I had a routine physical exam, lab work, and a colonoscopy. More: DB’s Medical Rants » Prostate cancer screening [...]
DB’s Medical Rants » Prostate cancer screening « Prostate Concerns
March 18th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
[...] See original here: DB’s Medical Rants » Prostate cancer screening [...]
Richard Neill, MD
March 18th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
What’s a ‘routine physical exam’? I am surprised by your choice of this phrase but am hopeful you can explain.
DB’s Medical Rants » Prostate cancer screening « Best HEALTH InfoCenter
March 19th, 2009 at 1:39 am
[...] Url : http://www.medrants.com/index.php/archives/4145 [...]
Joseph Ernst, M.D.
March 19th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
“Needless treatment” implies useless treatment, but preventing death is not the sole goal in treatment of prostate cancer. Prostate cancer can cause years of misery without killing (bone pain, pathologic fractures, urinary retention, bleeding, kidney obstruction, etc), and prevention of this misery is a laudable goal even if the patient eventually dies.
Consider that the 10 year disease free survival rate for radical prostatectomy (for clinically localized prostate cancer) is 85%. Everyone dies eventually, but 85 of every 100 men treated will not die of prostate cancer, and will not suffer the effects of untreated prostate cancer.
Did you make the right decision? Maybe. I don’t think I will ever know because you won’t tell me if you develop prostate cancer, and you yourself won’t know until it is well advanced.
Norman Morris
March 19th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
PSA is a very complex test, and dare I say little understood by the lay public. The current media report on the two studies released by the New England Medical Journal is misleading and irresponsible. The suggestion is that the PSA test itself–a simple blood test–can cause harm to the patient. The supposed harm, by the way, is not clearly described. The reports urge men to carefully consider the risks before undergoing screening. And they add that the testing fails to significantly reduce the chance of dying from the disease.
What’s wrong here?
Let’s get right to it. PSA is a tool–admittedly not a perfect one–used to detect the presence of cancer in the bloodstream. You can have minimal amounts–not dangerous,not life threatening–in your prostate that will perhaps cause you no grief. On the other hand,
if the measurement of PSA exceeds what your doctor thinks is “normal”, it MAY signal the presence cancer in the prostate and the patient may want to do something about it. Or not. He may elect a course called Expectant Managment, a course of surveillance.
If you or the doc wants to make sure there is cancer, he does a biopsy. That’s not a horrible procedure, but it may be uncomfortable and still there is no harm done! The procedure hunts for disease using tiny needles, so it can be missed. Think of trying to hit an infected seed of a strawberry. So, the biopsy makes several strikes and can even be repeated.
Now, if it is determined that you have cancer, you have an option of TREATMENTS. It may be surgery or radiation of one sort or another. It is at this point that you can have what these reports call “harmful.” Almost any treatment will have an impact on urinary incontinence and/or sexual function. But…these are not necessarily permanent. In any case, incontinence CAN be dealt with. In 85% of the cases, sexual function can be restored. But you have to be alive
to worry about either “harmful” effect.
The purpose, then, of the PSA test is to make sure you are not carrying around an excessive PSA that can become cancerous. The purpose of it is to discover any cancerous cells in your prostaate before they migrate beyond the walls of the prostate. If they do,
you can lose your opportunity to retain sexual function.
African Americans develop cancer twice the rate of any other race and should be tested by PSA earlier. So when you read about these
studies that try to correlate PSA testing with the death rates, understand that there is no proper correlation. That is NOT what a PSA is supposed to do. The problem with the PSA as a tool is that
it can detect something is amiss in your prostate that needs to be tended to…it is not a death sentence. A next generation tool is one that will point directly to cancer of the prostate–not to say, prostatitis or benign enlargement–but directly to prostate cancer.
That way we can eliminate the need for uncomfortable biopsies.
So if you content not doing a PSA, think again. Finding out early if you are at risk is the only way to find yourself a cure.
Dr Dan
March 25th, 2009 at 10:46 am
I’m afraid plaintiff’s attorneys and juries do not always read the NEJM. A colleague of mine, who happened to be the senior doctor in our group of family physicians, was successfully sued by a patient on whom he performed a physical exam without ordering a PSA. A year or so later the patient developed metastatic lesions from the cancer that was not clinically palpable at the time of the exam. My partner was a very thorough clinician, and would not have missed an obvious cancer. The patient did not die, but sued, and collected. My partner stopped seeing patients shortly afterwards, demoralized by the affair. Do I order PSAs on my patients? You bet I do.