More

Routine PSA Screening Doesn't Prevent Prostate Cancer Deaths: Study

Prostate Cancer Screening

First Posted: 01/ 6/2012 4:34 pm Updated: 01/ 6/2012 8:14 pm


By Genevra Pittman

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Annual screening for prostate cancer doesn't cut men's chances of dying from the disease, according to the latest results of a large screening trial.

Comparing men who were screened each year with so-called PSA tests, for prostate specific antigen, or rectal exams to those who received their usual care, researchers found that more men in the screening group had been diagnosed with prostate cancer after 13 years -- but there was no difference in how many had died from it.

The results support a previous report by the same researchers that found no difference in deaths seven to 10 years after the screening program started.

They are also consistent with recent draft guidelines from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommending that average-risk men not undergo regular PSA screening, according to a researcher who worked on the study.

"Men, if they're considering screening, should be aware that there's a possibility that there's little or no benefit (and) that there certainly are harms to PSA screening," said study co-author Philip Prorok, from the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Maryland.

Those harms include catching and treating small cancers that never would have been detected or caused men any problems, Prorok told Reuters Health.

MORE DIAGNOSIS, NOT MORE DEATHS

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 223,000 men were diagnosed with prostate cancer in the U.S. in 2007, the most recent year with available data, and 29,000 died from the disease.

The new findings are from a national study examining the effect of screening for prostate, lung, colon and ovarian cancers.

The data come from close to 77,000 middle-aged and older men, who between 1993 and 2001 were randomly assigned to a regular screening program with six years of annual PSA blood testing and four years of rectal exams, or to their usual care.

For some men, that usual care included cancer screening. The researchers estimated that men in the comparison group received about half as much screening as those enrolled in the annual screening program.

Thirteen years after the start of the study, 4,250 men who'd undergone annual screening had been diagnosed with prostate cancer, compared to 3,815 not in the screening program.

That worked out to a 12 percent increase in the number of cancers diagnosed with regular screening, Prorok and his colleagues reported Friday in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

However, there was not a clear difference in the number of men who died of prostate cancer over that time period: 158 in the annual screening group and 145 in the comparison group.

That was still the case when the researchers looked specifically at older or younger men, and those that did or didn't have other diseases.

Prorok said that because the number of cancers diagnosed in the usual care group never caught up with those found through regular screening, the PSA tests and exams that followed likely picked up some cancers that otherwise wouldn't have caused symptoms or threatened men's health.

"Somebody who is never going to suffer adverse effects of a disease, if you label them with cancer, you're kind of doing them a disservice," said Dr. Philipp Dahm, a urologist from the University of Florida in Gainesville, who has studied prostate cancer screening but wasn't involved in the new report.

And treatment, whether or not it's necessary, can come with side effects such as incontinence and impotency, he added.

'NO ABSOLUTE CLEAR ANSWER'

Dahm said that one limitation of this study is that because men in the usual care group were allowed to get cancer screening, it can't compare prostate cancer outcomes in men with annual screening and those who never get PSA tests.

Dr. Scott Eggener, a urologic cancer specialist from the University of Chicago Medical Center not involved in the study, said that was a serious flaw.

"It ends up being a study of intensive screening versus fairly intensive screening," he told Reuters Health. "You can't really make sense of it."

A large European study that may have provided a clearer comparison did suggest the tests are helpful at preventing deaths from prostate cancer, but the researchers said it had its own set of limitations.

When it comes to annual PSA testing, Prorok said, "There's no absolute clear answer here, but I think it's important that men become fully informed before they decide what to do."

Dahm agreed.

"I think in the future it will be wrong for physicians just to add this to the labs. It's important that physicians and patients talk about the value and the potential downsides of this test," he told Reuters Health.

"I'm sure it does good for many patients, but it has the risk for potential harm. Men just need to know what they're getting themselves into."

SOURCE: http://bit.ly/AoyC3I Journal of the National Cancer Institute, online January 6, 2012.

Also on HuffPost:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST HEALTHY LIVING

By Genevra Pittman NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Annual screening for prostate cancer doesn't cut men's chances of dying from the disease, according to the latest results of a large scree...
By Genevra Pittman NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Annual screening for prostate cancer doesn't cut men's chances of dying from the disease, according to the latest results of a large scree...
Filed by Reuters  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 12
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:13 PM on 01/08/2012
Well, dddduuuhhh! People actually have to get treatment for the disease. Many people who die from it haven't even gotten tested for it until it's terminal. Then there's the cost of the treatment.
Argument ensues.
11:22 PM on 01/07/2012
Everyone in the first sentence of the last post should read "anyone". Sorry.
11:21 PM on 01/07/2012
Unfortunately the pendulum is going to swing the other way now and the recommendations by national groups will be not to screen everyone. But I think there are some men who would benefit by screening, and this population needs to be identified. My hunch is that this population is going to be YOUNGER men(men in the 50-75 year old group). This is the group of men that get a particularly aggressive form of prostate cancer and are the men who die of progressive/advanced disease. It would be interesting to know the age distribution of the men in the study; if the study contained too many men age 75+, these are the men who are much more likely to die of another cause unrelated to the prostate cancer and oftentimes the prostate cancer is almost an incidental disease. I suspect after multiple epidemiological studies screening will be recommended for men below a certain age(?75) and after that should only be obtained if the man is having symptoms related to his urinary tract.
01:07 PM on 01/07/2012
The object of this 'what you don't know won't hurt you' exercise was not about successful health outcomes as much as it is about changing the Standard of Care to exclude the cost of PSA screening from the annual health exam bottom line, and making the argument that treatment ie surgery, radiation, and chemo are a possible waste of health care dollars, too.

Same maneuver has already been tried against women with regard to doing away with annual mammograms after 40.

It's of little comfort to the patient with drastically reduced options to know, too late, that something could have been done earlier except for some foolish statistical analysis was used instead of common sense to decide their future before they ever showed up.

Talk about 'death panels'...

Seriously, is this what doctors go into medicine for, now?

'God complex', indeed.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
howlar2
12:42 PM on 01/07/2012
Screening, per se, doesn't prevent anything. The treatments being used are not saving lives because "watchful waiting" is BS and so are the treatments. If you have prostate cancer HAVE IT REMOVED. What other operable cancer do we not remove? Chemo, radiation, heat, seeds are all delaying tactics. The only CURE is surgery. The doctor's are gambling with your life, expecting something else will kill you first, when they recommend "watchful waiting". I have seen several friends and relatives follow this advice an then die of bone cancer. 'Watchful waiting" means watching your cancer until it spreads and then waiting for you to die. Incontinence and/or impotence is far better than death, so DEMAND SURGERY!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bilhee
09:22 AM on 01/07/2012
You are SOOOOOOO wrong, A rising PSA is an indication that something is wrong, I believe that a PSA combined with a DRE certainly saved my life, because my primary doctor monitored my increasing PSA and gave me a DRE with every exam and finally felt the lump, the biopsy confirmed cancer and now I'm prostate free.(and cancer free acording to my current post prostatectomy numbers. There are no symptoms of prostate cancer and no indications that anything is wrong until it escapes the prostate and goes everywhere and then you WILL be dead. Why is there this stupid kind of study even being conducted??? (Hopefully without Federal Funds). It's the same concept as eliminating mammograms for early detection of breast cancer..Another stupid study!!!!At least with breast cancer there is some availability of self examination and if you feel something out of the ordinary..You can seek medical advice. I defy anyone to try to do a self examination of your prostate. The PSA test is a simple blood test which of course is not 100% accurate, like any other medical test..but come on doctors or researchers or whomever is doing this study,..Stop wasting your time and probably taxpayers money. Treatment is a whole different study and possibly not for everyone depending on many factors, but diagnosis???Come on..Go play golf and stop wasting your time wuith this
10:30 AM on 01/07/2012
It would be nice to think it did but probable isn't true. Prostate cancer most frequently doesn't ever kill the man even after decades. Even if you're a rare individual that's life was saved with PSA you have to realize many where needlessly harmed and some die that would never had a problem from their prostate cancer. PSA has never been proven to be effective in 3 decedes of research. It was a case of wishful think. Most good doctors explain this to patients. Urologist who can make millions over their career from the extra business from this worthless and slightly harmful overall test for some reason don't explain this to their patients.
01:12 PM on 01/07/2012
What are you talking about? Nobody has ever died from PSA testing or a DRE, to my knowledge.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:41 PM on 01/07/2012
with socialized medicine knocking at our door, I feel these type of "studies" will only increase so the govt does not have to take care of our medical needs, just take our money. They are now trying to say women do not need yearly mammograms. I trust none of it.
09:23 PM on 01/06/2012
At first glance I thought the headline said TSA is screening prostates now.
12:02 AM on 01/07/2012
Swear to God I thought I saw the same thing when I glanced at the headline. Now they've gone too far! LOL!