• Search Archives

  • Categories





  • We are one of a few medical consumer advocacy organizations in the U.S. that takes no funding from the pharmaceutical and device industries.




Posts Tagged ‘prostate cancer’

« Previous Entries

Why have a PSA test?

Posted by medconsumers on June 17, 2011

A new review of all clinical trials involving the treatment of early-stage prostate cancer with radiation therapy was published online first by Annals of Internal Medicine and funded primarily by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. It is yet-another example of the inadequacy of the current state of medical knowledge about how to treat early prostate cancer. The trials in this review compared different forms of radiation therapy and/or different doses of radiation. But the review authors bemoaned the lack of trials comparing radiation therapies with watchful waiting—that is, no treatment until symptoms develop.

Two earlier clinical trials (one conducted in Sweden and the other in the U.S.) compared watchful waiting (WW) with radical prostatectomy and came up with mixed results click here. The possibility that WW is better than any treatment has lingered ever since and remains a valid choice for men with early prostate cancer. Don’t take my word for it, see what heads the list of options at the National Cancer Institute website click here. Uncertainty will continue because no head-to-head comparison study has compared all treatment options with WW.

An obvious question comes to mind about the widespread use of the PSA (prostate-specific antigen) screening blood test: Why search for early prostate cancer in symptom-free men when leaving it untreated is reasonable? It is well documented in autopsy studies of older men who died of other causes that most prostate cancers remain dormant. It is also well established that all prostate cancer treatments hold the possibility of severe complications like incontinence, sexual dysfunction, and bowel injury, just to name a few. Prostate cancer kills about 32,000 American men yearly, but the PSA can’t accurately determine whether an early prostate cancer will remain dormant or become life-threatening.

Two trials sought the definitive answer to the question of whether regular PSA screening saves lives; both were published in the same 2009 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine and the results were contradictory. One (U.S. trial) found no lifesaving benefit but lots of harm. And the other (European) found a modest reduction in prostate cancer mortality which came at the great cost of overtreatment: Out of every 1,400 men given PSA screening tests regularly for ten years, one man avoided death from prostate cancer and 48 healthy men were treated unnecessarily for a form of prostate cancer that would never have become symptomatic or life-threatening.

PSA Screening: A brief history
As recently as 1990, there wasn’t much research devoted to the treatment of prostate cancer. It was (and still is) an elderly man’s disease; and “who cares” was the general attitude about a disease that was typically diagnosed at age 75. Surgery was the usual way it was treated … but only after symptoms appeared. Then, in the late 1980s, the PSA (prostate-specific antigen) blood test was introduced as a screening test to find the disease “early” in symptom-less men. Till then, the PSA test was administered only to detect recurrences in men already treated for prostate cancer. And who was behind the expanded use of the PSA? The companies that make the ultrasound machines and biopsy “guns” to diagnose prostate cancer and the drugs that might prevent prostate cancer recurrence (I read this in the N.Y. Times in 1993).

In time, research would show that the PSA isn’t accurate when used as a screening test. But an industry had already begun to build around this usage. Hospitals, for example, offer free PSA screening, seemingly as a good will gesture to the community but also a great way to drum up future customers. The list of treatment options expanded to include different forms of radiation therapy, cryotherapy, and androgen-deprivation therapy. Watchful waiting might be offered, but it did not catch on. Studies showed that most men, even when fully informed of the lack of evidence for the superiority of treatment, opted to be treated because they just couldn’t live with the knowledge of having an untreated cancer.

Some doctors were initially skeptical about PSA screening, but most eventually seemed to fall in line. Malpractice concerns, no doubt. And if any man had doubts about PSA as a lifesaver, they were alleviated by celebrity survivors like General Norman Schwarzkopf and Mayor Rudolph Giuliani who think their lives were saved by the PSA and had multiple opportunities to publicly attest to the wisdom of their respective treatment choices.

If a great many lives were saved as a result of all this early-detection activity, we should know it by now. But in fact there is not only a small decrease in the U.S. prostate cancer death rate but also a large increase in the number of men diagnosed with the disease. And just to make things more complicated, an equivalent drop in prostate cancer mortality has also been shown in countries that do not offer PSA screening tests. click here

What to do
Think twice about having a screening PSA. Consider all options prior to accepting the test. And make sure your doctor doesn’t include it in the routine blood test without your knowledge. At best (the European trial), the chance of being treated unnecessarily as a result of PSA screening is 48 times higher than the chance of avoiding death from prostate cancer. At worst (the U.S. trial), men are treated unnecessarily and no prostate cancer deaths are avoided.

Maryann Napoli, Center for Medical Consumers©

Posted in Cancer, Doctors, Men's Health, Screening | Tagged: , , , , , , | Comments Off

Provenge®

Posted by medconsumers on April 5, 2011

Should Medicare spare no expense in extending the lives of elderly people with incurable advanced cancer? Should cost-effectiveness be taken into consideration when approving a drug that works—sort of—but is extremely expensive?

Such questions are crucial to sustaining our currently unsustainable medical care system. But they were studiously avoided last month when Medicare announced that it would pay for Provenge, the controversial drug/vaccine for advanced prostate cancer. Rationing would, of course, be the outcry, but as someone has already pointed out, “It is irrational to think that we can have a medical care system that avoids rationing.”

It also seems irrational to approve a drug for symptomless cancer when the drug itself has a list of distressing symptoms (side effects), according to the company’s official website. Medicare approval was very specific regarding who should receive Provenge: “Medicare beneficiaries with asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic metastatic castrate-resistant (hormone refractory) prostate cancer.” Translation: this drug is proven effective only for men with minimal or no symptoms of advanced prostate cancer that did not respond to chemical castration, aka androgen deprivation therapy.

Here’s the backstory for Provenge, which has been controversial for over three years. The drug/vaccine costs about $93,000, delivered as three intravenous infusions approximately 2 weeks apart. It has been shown to extend life for about four months compared with a placebo. Another way of putting the same information: In the trial conducted for FDA approval, men with advanced prostate cancer who received no treatment lived a median of about 26 months; the men who received the drug/vaccine lived a median of about 30 months.

High hopes were pinned on Provenge by groups representing men with prostate cancer largely because it is a vaccine. It is not a vaccine for prevention; rather it is a vaccine for men who already have prostate cancer. Provenge stimulates the body’s immune system to resist the disease…at least for a short period of time. The voices of patient advocacy were heard loud and clear three years ago when the FDA decided not to approve Provenge for any stage of prostate cancer because effectiveness was uncertain. The advocacy groups generally wanted blanket approval for Provenge. Researchers and policy makers, on the other hand, know from experience that once a high-profile drug like Provenge is approved, it will be prescribed for earlier stages of prostate cancer. Knowing this is likely to happen, Medicare has issued a statement that Provenge should be prescribed for earlier stages of prostate cancer only in the context of a clinical trial. I think we can count on it being ignored, despite the fact that the evidence supporting Provenge’s use for earlier stages of prostate cancer has been described as “virtually nil”.

The cancer patients’ understandable need for hope and extended survival has become the driving force behind the demand for FDA approval whether the scientific evidence is weak, strong, or non-existent. But does it make sense to demand a blank check for anything the drug companies put on the market? And why would a drug company go back to the lab and come up with a more effective drug when it can make lots of money on one that’s only marginally effective?

Though not a chemotherapy drug, Provenge is emblematic of new cancer drugs with extremely high cost and effectiveness so miniscule that one British blogger wrote, only half in jest: “We doctors will have to start measuring chemotherapy’s effect on survival with stopwatches.”

Can we have a national conversation about these issues that is rational? No, is the obvious answer, but it is worth considering the options before you ever develop a terminal condition. Last summer the New England Journal of Medicine published a study that defies conventional wisdom about aggressive treatment for advanced cancer. It showed people with terminal lung cancer who chose early, palliative care offered by hospice had a better quality of remaining life and, surprisingly, a longer life than those given the standard aggressive treatment at the end of life. Click here

Maryann Napoli, Center for Medical Consumers©

Posted in Cancer, vaccines | Tagged: , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Cancer screening tests right to the grave

Posted by medconsumers on October 13, 2010

When my husband and I picked up his mother after yet-another hospitalization for complications of congestive heart failure, I read her discharge orders. “Be sure to schedule a Pap test and a mammogram after you get home.” Naturally, we ignored the directive as absurd for a woman in her mid-nineties who clearly had a condition that would soon cause her death.

Apparently, this is more common than I’d ever imagined. A new study, published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association, found “a sizeable proportion” of people with terminal cancer are given screening tests for common cancers. And the testing is beyond the two recommended to my mother-in-law. Nearly 9% of the advanced cancer patients in this study were tested for new cancers.

Here’s how the study, funded by the U.S. National Cancer Institute, was done. Researchers at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, searched the data from Medicare claims to determine the number of cancer screening tests given for new cancers to people already diagnosed with an advanced cancer. The reseachers assessed data on 87,736 people ages 65 and older who had been diagnosed with advanced lung, colorectal, pancreatic, gastroesophageal, or breast cancer between 1998 and 2005. All were followed up until death or December 2005, whichever came first. Each was matched by age, sex, and race to Medicare enrollees without cancer.

Keep in mind that screening is the testing of people without symptoms, and the tests may have been ordered without much thought as to what would be done once a new cancer is detected. Would a surgeon do a prostatectomy on a man with an incurable cancer some place else and a life expectancy of less than two years? I suspect the answer is yes. Why else would the test be ordered?

The tests most commonly given to advanced cancer patients were predicable. Mammography was number one, received by nearly 9% of the women with advanced cancer, with the Pap test running a close second at nearly 6%. As for the men, 15% got a PSA test and nearly 2% of all got a colonoscopy. As for the age-matched people without cancer in the control group, 2-3 times more of them had at least one of the cancer screening tests.

Who are the most likely to be screened right to the grave? Married people with higher socioeconomic status. And people who were screened regularly before they were diagnosed with the cancer that would eventually cause their death.

On this last point the research team led by Camelia S. Sima, M.D., hypothesized that “efforts to foster adherence to screening have led to deeply ingrained habits. Patients and their health care practitioners accustomed to obtaining screening tests at regular intervals continue to do so even when the benefits have been rendered futile in the face of competing risk from advanced cancer.”

Maybe so, but I suspect that something more than mindless aggressive testing is at play here. America has a death-denying culture. Continued testing keeps hope alive and avoids that unpleasant conversation about the end-of-life. It’s not over until your doctor stops ordering cancer tests.

Maryann Napoli, Center for Medical Consumers©

Posted in breast cancer, Cancer, Doctors, Drug ads, Screening, testing, Women's Health | Tagged: , , , , , | Comments Off

Overtreatment of early prostate cancer

Posted by medconsumers on August 6, 2010

In the 20 years since the screening PSA blood test for prostate cancer was introduced, it has become increasingly obvious that widespread use is causing far more harm than good—namely, the unnecessary treatment of cancers destined to remain dormant and never produce symptoms. The latest evidence comes from researchers who looked at treatment patterns of U.S. men whose cancers were detected at the earliest stage. The results raise questions not only about their overly aggressive treatment but also the PSA test level for sending them off for the biopsy which starts the whole process.

Keep in mind that doctors still cannot tell the difference between the prostate cancers that are going nowhere and the small minority that will turn aggressive and deadly. The new study found that over 75% of the men whose prostate cancers were least likely to spread or become lethal underwent a radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy. The severe adverse effects of each include impotence and incontinence.

The study, led by Yu-Hsuan Shao, PhD, Cancer Institute of New Jersey, appeared in the Archives of Internal Medicine. It drew on data from U.S. cancer registries, specifically about the treatment of 123,934 men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer from 2004 to 2006.

The advanced age of the men in this study is a cause for major concern. Almost 69% of men age 65 to 74 and about 40% of those over 75 had their prostates surgically removed or irradiated. This was described as “troubling” in the accompanying editorial because men 65 and older cannot expect any prostate treatment to prolong life. The editorialists, Richard M. Hoffman, MD, and Steven B. Zeliadt, PhD, cite a landmark 2005 Scandinavian trial that randomly assigned men with prostate cancer to receive immediate prostatectomy or “active surveillance” (aka watchful waiting). The surgery increased survival only for men, age 65 and younger. (To see how modest the survival benefit is even for younger men, click here for results from two 2009 studies.)

Also at issue is the PSA level at which a biopsy is recommended. The men treated aggressively in this study had “a PSA threshold below 4.0 ng/mL.” At a time when some researchers are arguing for lowering this threshold even further, Shao and colleagues made it clear that—given their findings—this would only make a bad situation worse. “Lowering the biopsy threshold but retaining our inability to distinguish indolent from aggressive cancer might increase the risk of overdiagnosis and overtreatment.”

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the Cancer Institute of New Jersey, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

For more information
Go to the prostate cancer section of the National Cancer Institute’s database to read about screening, treatment options, and active surveillance, which describes the most conservative option of no treatment. This is a remarkably honest source of information. Read both the patient and professional versions.

To learn about the inappropriate use of androgen deprivation therapy for men with early-stage prostate cancer, click here.

Maryann Napoli, Center for Medical Consumers(c)

Posted in Cancer, Screening | Tagged: , , , , , , | Comments Off

Prostate cancer treatment misused

Posted by medconsumers on December 14, 2009

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is prescribed inappropriately for many men in the early stages of prostate cancer and is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes. This was shown in a new study of over 37,000 men treated at the early stages of prostate cancer in the Veterans Healthcare Administration between 2001 and 2005. Published in a recent issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, the study raises questions about informed consent and how much information men are given about ADT beforehand. There is no proof that it can prolong life or help men with low-risk, early-stage disease, yet ADT can cause severe adverse effects because it is drug-induced castration.

The research team led by Nancy L. Keating, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, found that the high risks of diabetes (25%) and cardiovascular disease (20%) were associated with the gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists. The drugs, sold under the brand names of Lupron and Zoladex, are injected by a physician or implanted under the skin every few months. No increased risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease was associated with oral anti-androgen drugs like Euflex and Casodex, which are usuallly given in conjunction with GnRH agonists or, rarely, by themselves.

The increased use of ADT was linked to widespread screening with the PSA (prostate-specific antigen) blood test in a hard-hitting editorial that accompanied the VA study. The author, Peter C. Albertsen, MD, Department of Surgery, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, states that the VA study offers a rare glimpse into the extent of ADT usage. He went on to note that PSA screening has dramatically changed the type of patient newly diagnosed with prostate cancer. “Before the advent of PSA screening, physicians used ADT to relieve symptoms of advanced prostate cancer. Now we use ADT primarily to treat patients with a rising level of PSA.” And most tellingly, Dr. Petersen writes, “We do not know whether these treatments [ADT] have prolonged survival, but [this study] confirms that this approach has the potential for substantial unintended side effects.”

Hot flashes, weakness, fatigue, cognitive impairment, and depression are the “substantial unintended side effects” of ADT, aka chemical castration. The VA study is not the first to link ADT to an increased risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease, but it shines a light on unproven uses of this drastic therapy. The study shows that ADT is often given as the primary treatment for men with local and regional prostate cancer who have no symptoms of the disease, as well as symptomless men whose post-treatment PSA test show rising levels. The increased use of ADT can be chalked up to the fact that the PSA screening test was introduced in the late 1980s. This is well before the benefit of finding prostate cancer before symptoms appear was proven to reduce a man’s chances of dying from prostate cancer. See results of two recent clinical trials that explored this important question.

Dr. Keating, the lead author of the VA study, was asked to identify the men with prostate cancer for whom the proven benefits of ADT outweigh its considerable risks. “There are proven benefits to ADT for men with symptomatic metastatic prostate cancer in terms of controlling the spread of the disease which causes symptoms such as bone pain and fractures,” answered Dr. Keating in an e-mail, “and [there is] also a survival benefit to ADT when used as adjuvant [additional] therapy for men with high-grade disease, which is localized disease with high-risk features that make it more likely to return after primary treatment [with surgery or radiation therapy].”

And for whom is ADT most likely to be questionable? “The concern is that many men are treated with ADT for indications where there have never been studies showing benefit (e.g., as a primary treatment of prostate cancer and as a preventive against recurrence in those whose PSA levels rise after primary treatment). In these settings, the risks may outweigh any benefits,” answered Dr. Keating. “I think this has become a popular treatment because patients and doctors like the idea of doing something to treat the cancer. But the problem is, it has never been studied, and may have substantial adverse effects.”

So has the PSA screening test saved at least some lives? Apparently not, according to editorialist Dr. Petersen, who compared the current prostate cancer death rate with that of the era when men were not diagnosed with prostate cancer until they noticed symptoms. “Before the widespread use of PSA screening, an American man had an 8.7% lifetime risk of being diagnosed with prostate cancer and 2.5% risk of dying from this disease. By 2005, the lifetime risk of being diagnosed had increased to 17%, whereas the lifetime risk of dying from prostate cancer remained virtually unchanged.”

Maryann Napoli, Center for Medical Consumers(c)

Posted in Cancer, Men's Health, Screening, surgery | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Just Say No to the PSA Prostate Cancer Test

Posted by medconsumers on April 16, 2009

“Studies Fail to Settle Prostate Screening Debate” (Boston Globe);
“Prostate Screening Saves Lives” (BBC). 
“Prostate Cancer Screening May Not Reduce Deaths” (Washington Post).

These are just some of the headlines for the big health story last month about the PSA (prostate-specific antigen) screening blood test.  The results from two long awaited clinical trials were released early and simultaneously by The New England Journal of Medicine on March 18.  Despite the seemingly conflicting messages of these sample headlines, it is now clear that symptomless men should consider refusing this test.

The larger of the two trials was conducted in several European countries.  It found that the lifesaving benefit of PSA screening is far more modest than previously thought…and the risk of harm is very high.  For every 1,400 men who regularly had a PSA screening test over the ten-year period of the European trial, one man avoided death from prostate cancer and 47 men were treated unnecessarily for a cancer that did not progress.  The risks of treatment include urinary incontinence, bowel problems, and impotence.  Otis W. Brawley, MD, chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society, summed up the findings this way: “The test is about 50 times more likely to ruin your life than it is to save your life.”  (Click here for Treatment for Early Prostate Cancer.)

The other trial was U.S. government-funded and, unlike the European trial, it showed no reduction in prostate cancer deaths. The predictable and disturbing finding from both trials is this—many more prostate cancers were diagnosed in the men who were screened with the PSA test than in those who were not.  Few men opt for the “wait and see” approach once a PSA test, biopsy and other tests indicate the presence of cancer.

The debate over the PSA test is expected to continue, largely because flaws can be found in virtually all trials.  For example, the U.S. trial had less than half the number of participants of the European trial (162,000), which some believe may account for the absence of a lifesaving benefit.  In the U.S. trial, men were randomly assigned to annual PSA tests plus a digital rectal examination (screened group) OR what is known as usual care.

Given the fact that the PSA test has been aggressively marketed as a lifesaving test to doctors and the general public for the last 20 years, usual care in the U.S. involves a doctor recommending a PSA test. It is considered unethical to ask men in the unscreened control group not to have a PSA, and a large portion of them in the U.S. trial—38% to 52%—had the test.  Western European countries put up barriers to the marketing of an unproven test to the public.  In the U.S., most men over age 50 have regular PSA tests; in the U.K., where the National Health Service does not recommend PSA testing, only about 6% of men have had a PSA test because they requested one.

Treatment-Related Deaths?
There was a troubling finding from the U.S. trial that did not get media attention last month—it involves the deaths from the prostate cancer treatment itself.  When the authors of this trial looked solely at the participants who had been diagnosed with prostate cancer in the 10-year period of the trial, there were 312 men in the PSA screening group and 225 men in the unscreened control group who had died from causes other than prostate cancer.  The unexpectedly higher number of deaths in the screened group, say the authors, is “possibly” related to treatment of non-progressive cancer.

The question that no one seems to be asking at this time is: Why was the PSA screening test allowed to become so widespread when it cannot identify which prostate cancers are aggressive and lethal?  And no test currently exists that can make that distinction accurately.

Cancer screening tests are approved by the FDA on the basis of an outdated understanding of cancer, i.e. all cancers are deadly; finding cancer early is always good.; treatments are more effective with early diagnosis. All a company has to do is prove its product can find symptomless cancers.  The success of any screening test, however, should based on how many deaths can be avoided.  And most important, the chance of avoiding death should be far greater than the chance of serious harm as a result of the test itself.  The PSA screening test fails on both counts.

What to do:

  • Inform yourself. Try to get as much information about prostate cancer, early detection, and the PSA test from sources other than hospitals and doctors who treat prostate cancer.  The National Cancer Institute is one place to start (www.cancer.gov).
  • Be aware of the fact that some men are given the PSA test without their knowledge.  It is often automatically added in with the standard blood test for cholesterol, etc.  If you decide to forego a PSA test, make your wishes known before you are given a blood test.
  • Recognize that fear-mongering with statistics is essential to cancer screening promotion.  Prostate cancer may in fact be the second leading cause of cancer death in men, but it accounts for only 3% of all deaths.  No prostate screening campaign is likely to flip that statistic around to tell men that 97% of them will not die of prostate cancer.  And the 20% reduction in prostate cancer deaths shown in the PSA screened group in the European study.  Here’s what it means: The man who regularly has a PSA test over the course of the next ten years will reduce his risk of dying of prostate cancer from 3% to 2.4%.

Maryann Napoli, Center for Medical Consumers© April 2009

Share This Article

Posted in Cancer, Men's Health, Screening | Tagged: , , , | Comments Off

Screening for Prostate Cancer: The More They Test, The More They Find

Posted by medconsumers on November 1, 2007

It’s a controversy that has been roiling among research physicians for two decades: Does the prostate-specific antigen, or PSA, blood test for prostate cancer cause more harm than good? Does the early detection of prostate cancer—that is, before symptoms appear—actually save lives? These questions still haven’t been answered, though many physicians automatically test their middle-aged and elderly male patients as if they have.

A new study conducted in Europe was initiated to see whether PSA screening symptom-free men every two years has any advantage over screening at four-year intervals. The short answer is no, but this study, published in the September 5 issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, suggests that the PSA test is more likely to find non-life threatening cancers without reducing the number of advanced and potentially lethal cancers.

Monique J. Roobol, PhD, and colleagues at medical centers in Holland and Sweden based their findings on data from a large trial called the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. Initiated in 1993, this trial will answer the question of whether early detection of prostate cancer reduces mortality from this disease.

The reason that this trial and its American equivalent, the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer trial ongoing since 1992, will take so long to provide answers is the fact that most prostate cancers found on the basis of PSA screening are either non-progressive or so slow-growing that they will never become life threatening or symptomatic. A minority of the prostate cancers diagnosed during the course of this trial will be the deadly aggressive version, and it is unclear whether early detection and prompt treatment of these fast-growing cancers will result in prolonged lives. About 17% of U.S. men contract prostate cancer and 3% of them will die of the disease.

Context Needed

Any discussion of the new study about screening intervals requires some background information on prostate cancer itself. Pathologists have long known that many of the cancers that show up in the prostate will never become lethal had they remained undetected for a lifetime. Autopsy studies of men who died in accidents show that the older they are, the more likely they will have cancer in the prostate.

That’s why the measure of a screening test’s value is not how many cancers it can find; instead it is a reduction in prostate cancer deaths. But that’s not all. Harm must also be taken into account. The detection of prostate cancers that would never progress or become lethal clearly results in a high rate of biopsies and unnecessary treatment. The latter—irradiation or surgical removal of the prostate—is associated with an increased risk of urinary incontinence, bowel dysfunction and impotence.

The diagnosis of new cases of prostate cancer increased substantially in all countries after PSA screening was introduced. In the U.S., for example, PSA screening began in the late 1980s. But contrary to expectations, the prostate cancer death rate has decreased only modestly. And it is not known whether the drop in prostate cancer mortality is due to early detection or improvements in treatment, or both. Such uncertainties can be resolved by a long-term clinical trial that randomly assigns men to be screened (with a PSA test and a digital rectal examination) or not. This describes the European and the American ongoing trials.

“Interval Cancers” Studied

The new study by Roobol and colleagues takes on yet-another unanswered question about prostate cancer screening: What is the appropriate interval for screening? In the U.S. trial, men are usually screened annually.

Not so in Europe. Some medical centers participating in the European trial screen participants every four years, and others screen every two years. This difference in intervals provided the opportunity for Roobol and colleagues to see whether one has any advantage over the other. Of particular interest was the number of prostate cancers detected in men between screening tests. These are what researchers call “interval cancers.” And they are worrisome because they are likely to be the potentially fatal, advanced cancers. A reduction in their detection would be a good sign that screening might eventually reduce the number of prostate cancer deaths.

Roobol and colleagues found that, after 10 years, more cancers were diagnosed in the men (12%) screened at the shorter (two-year) intervals than in the men (8%) screened at longer (four-year) intervals. Contrary to expectations, the number of potentially life-threatening prostate cancers was the same in both groups. The downside of too frequent screening is overdiagnosis, i.e., the increased detection of cancers that do not progress, resulting in more unnecessary biopsies and treatments.

Asked by e-mail for the bottom line message from her study, Dr. Roobol wrote, “Screening should not be done at fixed intervals but through a more personal approach. Men with very low PSA levels (<1.0 ng/ml) can, depending on their age, be screened at much longer intervals. Screening every year for me looks [like] too much for the majority of men in the age group 55 or higher.”

E. David Crawford, MD, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, author of the editorial that accompanied this study, had this observation: “Although many of us believe that early detection is saving lives, definitive evidence is lacking.”

This uncertainty is reflected in the treatment options listed for all stages of prostate cancer on the National Cancer Institute Web site (www.cancer.gov). Whether prostate cancer is diagnosed at stage I (early) or stage IV (advanced)—no treatment is as reasonable a choice as having the prostate surgically removed or irradiated.

That raises the obvious question: Why test symptomless men when—once cancer is found—no treatment is a valid option? We still don’t know whether the man whose cancer was detected after symptoms appeared is any worse off than the symptom-less man whose cancer was detected with a screening PSA test.

More Needle Biopsies, More Prostate Cancers Detected

“Despite the considerable attention given to the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) as a screening test for prostate cancer, it is needle biopsy—and the PSA test result—that actually establishes the diagnosis of prostate cancer.”

With that as background, H. Gilbert Welch and colleagues at Dartmouth and other Medical Centers studied Medicare claims to determine the proportion of men, aged 65 years and older, who have prostate cancer after a needle biopsy (removal of prostatic tissue by inserting a thin needle through the rectum and into several sections of the prostate). Their study was published in the September 19 issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute

The researchers found: Over 10,000 needle biopsies were performed in 1993 through 2001 in 8,273 men, age 65 and older. The overall proportion of needle biopsies found to contain cancer was 32%, and it increased with age—35% for men in their late 70s and 41% for men over age 80.

The risk of finding prostate cancer increased with repeat biopsies in those initially found to be cancer-free, with 50% of the men diagnosed with prostate cancer after two biopsies, 62% after three biopsies and 68% after four biopsies.

The odds of finding cancer go up not only with the age of the man undergoing a needle biopsy but also the number of tissue samples taken. Over the years, the needle biopsy has become more and more aggressive. Initially, needle biopsies consisted of jabs for prostate tissue in six different sites. Now many urologists advocate 12 or more and some even advocate “saturation biopsy,” which involves 32 to 38 jabs, say Welch and colleagues, “the more biopsies taken, the more cancer is found.” The incidence of biopsy-induced infection was not recorded in this study.

Maryann Napoli, Center for Medical Consumers ©
November 2007

Posted in Cancer, Men's Health | Tagged: , , , | Comments Off

Early Promoters Of PSA Screening For Prostate Cancer Do A Turnabout

Posted by medconsumers on February 1, 2005

At first, it appeared to be heresy. A paper published last October in the Journal of Urology indicates that the PSA screening test for prostate cancer has lead to widespread cancer diagnoses in men who did not need to be treated. The paper entitled, “The prostate specific antigen [PSA] era in the U.S. is over for prostate cancer: what happened in the last 20 years?” received surprisingly little publicity. What made it so remarkable was the fact that the lead author, Thomas A Stamey, MD., and colleagues at Stanford University are credited with early promotion of PSA screening in a paper published in 1987. Now, their recent data present a powerful argument against this use in symptomless men.

The paper describes a study that shows the presence of cancer in the prostate increases with age. Autopsies conducted on 525 men, equally divided between white and black men, killed accidentally on the streets of Detroit , showed that 8% of those in their 20s had prostate cancer. There was a linear increase in prostate cancer with each increasing decade of life. About 80% of the men (of both races) who were in their 70s had invasive prostate cancer.

The fact that most prostate cancers will remain dormant is demonstrated aptly by another statistic in this paper: “[Prostate cancer] has an extraordinarily small death rate of 226 per 100,000 men older than 65 years,” wrote Stamey and colleagues. Deaths from prostate cancer are rarer yet in men under age 65, according to the National Cancer Institute. Yet despite these statistics that make a case for not screening symptomless men for prostate cancer, the PSA blood test began to go into widespread use in the late 1980s. There is still no test that can accurately distinguish slow-growing or latent prostate cancer from the type that is moderately rapid and fatal.

Over the course of two decades, Dr. Stamey and colleagues assessed 1,317 consecutive prostates that had been removed surgically between 1983 and 2003—what they called the “PSA era.” The idea was to see how well the PSA test given before surgery accurately reflected the size of the largest cancers. Here’s what they found: “In the first ten years after PSA screening was introduced, there was a reasonably good, although not great, correlation between serum PSA and prostate cancer volume.”

But, as the years went by, things changed completely. When the researchers assessed the prostates removed most recently, that is, between 1998 and 2003, they found that the PSA tests were detecting benign enlargement of the prostate, rather than cancer. Benign prostatic hyperplasia, or enlarged prostate, is a common condition in men over age 60.

Dr. Stamey and colleagues explained their findings in this way: American men between 50 and 80 years have been screened so intensely over the last 20 years that the most significant of the prostate cancers had already been detected. However, they glossed over the substantial harm done to men in the PSA era in terms of unnecessary prostatectomies and unnecessary radiation therapy. The issue was alluded to in only one sentence, using one word— overtreatment.

In a telephone interview, Dr. Stamey said he had no hope that the huge industry that has now built around PSA screening will disappear with his findings. So he stressed the importance of informed consent where it concerns the use of the PSA test in symptomless men. “It is immoral for surgeons not to tell patients that we [men] all get prostate cancer as we age,” said Dr. Stamey, after describing himself as a 76-year-old surgeon who hasn’t had a screening PSA test in several years.

“Patients should be told that there’s a high chance of having prostate cancer that rises with age, but a very low chance of dying of it. Do we really want to screen 100,000 men to save 226 from dying of prostate cancer? In fact, it’s about the same chance of my not driving home safely tonight.” What’s more, he continued, 20 years ago, the prostate was biopsied in only six places, now it’s 36.

What about the PSA test’s possible role in the slight dip in the U.S. prostate cancer death rate? Dr. Stamey gave no credit to PSA screening.

“The death rates from several other common cancers have fallen, too, but we have no idea why.”

Maryann Napoli, Center for Medical Consumers ©
February 2005

Posted in Cancer, Men's Health, Screening | Tagged: , , , | Comments Off

Survey Of Patient Education Materials About Prostate Cancer Treatment

Posted by medconsumers on June 1, 2004

One-Sided Information Common

Our office often receives calls asking for a source of balanced information about the treatment options for early prostate cancer. It has always been a stumper. Our usual recommendation is the National Cancer Institute’s treatment summaries (www.cancer.gov), but this is a disappointing source of information where it concerns prostate cancer. Unlike other cancers, this one might be just as well left undetected and untreated (more on that later), and it is hard to find anything that gives a balanced view of all options, including no treatment. In fact, we have yet to find one.

That’s why we were interested in a new survey of “Patient Education Materials about the Treatment of Early Prostate Cancer,” published last month in Annals of Internal Medicine. 546 consumer pamphlets and Web sites were surveyed and given scores based on these two crucial questions: Are all the options presented? Are the potential harms as well as potential benefits presented? Professional organizations, medical centers, and drug companies were among the publishers of the educational materials in this survey.

What makes early-stage prostate cancer such a good test of an information source’s honesty is the fact that no head-to-head comparison study of all three treatment options has ever been conducted, though radical prostatectomy has long been the common treatment. For what other cancer would a prospective patient face the choice of having an organ removed, irradiated, or left alone unless symptoms develop (watchful waiting)—all of which are equal in terms of survival?

So when this patient education materials survey was published last month, we were ready to champion the top choices in this newsletter and add a link within our Web site to those with the high scores. The first stop was the Web site of the medical division of the University of Toronto (www.library.utoronto.ca/medicine/prostate).

After multiple failed attempts to get through and no response from the site’s Web master, it was on to the next high scorer, the Web site of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, which describes itself on the local public radio station as providing, “The best cancer care anywhere.”

This Web site’s information amounts to a sales pitch for certain radiation and surgical techniques pioneered by doctors at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Don’t expect a full explanation for why watchful waiting might be worth considering. This option merits only five sentences. The American Cancer Society wasn’t any more forthcoming on watchful waiting, providing exactly the same minimal amount of space.

How did these Web sites score so high? That question merited a return to the statements written by Angela Fagerlin, PhD, of the University of Michigan, and colleagues after completing their survey:

All sites reviewed were accurate, but some erred by omission, most typically de-emphasizing side effects of therapy. Several sites presented so little of the key content that they generated somewhat misleading impressions.

And this about the printed materials:

No print education materials we evaluated had clinically significant misstatements, although some references were out of date because of the publication date. We found only one case of clinical significant imbalance in the treatment descriptions. However, a general bias was toward active treatment that minimized the role of watchful waiting. In addition, the likelihood and impact of side effects were minimized [emphasis ours].

What is really needed here is not just a balanced view of treatments, but an honest view of prostate cancer. Men die of prostate cancer. A small percentage of all prostate cancers are aggressive, and rapidly fatal no matter how early they are detected and treated. The majority, however, are so slow growing that they will never become life threatening or produce symptoms. In between, there may be a small proportion of men with a type of prostate cancer that could benefit from early detection and immediate treatment. An ongoing clinical trial is pursuing the question of whether early detection of prostate cancer is lifesaving. Though men will be told their PSA and Gleason scores, no test can determine accurately which prostate cancers will become aggressive and which will remain dormant.

As this survey shows, treatment-related harms are usually left out of the information given to patients. Since the choice of watchful waiting is counterintuitive to most people, it deserves a clear and lengthy explanation. After all, hasn’t the early-detection-saves-lives message been drummed into the public’s consciousness for years?

There is a reasonable amount of preliminary research to suggest that men should give serious thought to avoiding a PSA test for prostate cancer because it is unclear whether early treatment is lifesaving. For example, a Swedish study, which had randomly assigned men to watchful waiting or radical prostate surgery, showed that the men who underwent surgery did not live longer than those who did not. After six years, there were 4% fewer prostate cancer deaths among the surgically treated men. That benefit, however, was canceled by the fact that their quality of life was worse (incontinence and impotence are treatment complications) and their 4% higher rate of deaths from other causes.

Several studies monitored untreated men with favorable results, for example, one followed Swedish men who were not treated unless symptoms developed. At 15 years, those whose cancers appeared to be confined to the prostate at diagnosis had a prostate cancer death rate of 11%. In the U.S., men treated with a radical prostatectomy for early-stage disease have a similar mortality rate. Don’t expect to hear about these studies from your average urologic surgeon. And there is no financial incentive for a medical center’s Web site to provide a balanced description of watchful waiting.

What you can do:

  • Send for the free pamphlet that got the best score in the print material category by calling the National Cancer Institute (NCI) hotline, 1(800) 4-CANCER. Ask for “Understanding Treatment Choices for Prostate Cancer.” The same pamphlet can be read at the NCI Web site (www.cancer.gov/prostate). It includes a survey of prostate cancer patients’ experiences with treatment-related complications, such as incontinence and impotence.
  • Talk over the options with a knowledgeable primary care physician. When getting a second opinion about treatment, recommendations will correspond to the bias of the specialist. Not surprisingly, urologic surgeons advise surgery and radiation oncologists recommend radiation therapy. As with the information sources in this survey, a test of a primary care doctor’s knowledge would be his or her opinion of watchful waiting.
  • Do not have a PSA screening blood test for prostate cancer without informing yourself beforehand. Read the new book entitled Should I be Tested for Cancer? Maybe not and here’s why (Berkeley: University of California Press) by H. Gilbert Welch, MD.

Maryann Napoli
June 2004

Posted in Cancer, Men's Health, Screening | Tagged: , , | Comments Off

PSA Screening Test for Prostate Cancer

Posted by medconsumers on May 1, 2003

An Interview with Otis Brawley, MD

By Maryann Napoli

The prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening test for early prostate cancer has been surrounded by controversy ever since it was introduced over 15 years ago. The test can indicate the presence of cancer, but many men have a form of prostate cancer that will remain dormant or is so slow-growing that it will never cause symptoms. Neither this test, nor any other can distinguish which prostate cancer will become lethal. Furthermore, there is no proof that the use of the PSA blood test to screen symptom-free men will spare anyone a prostate cancer death, yet it is associated with a considerable amount of unnecessary treatment with aftereffects that can be both severe and permanent. All of the treatments for early prostate cancer carry the risk of impotence and incontinence. In short, cancer researchers do not know whether PSA screening saves more lives than it ruins. (Update: In 2009, two important clinical trials published contradictory results click here.)

Otis W. Brawley, MD, is the brains behind the ongoing National Cancer Institute Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial, which is designed to answer questions about the effectiveness of screening and the causes of prostate cancer. After leaving the National Cancer Institute, Dr. Brawley became the Director of the Georgia Cancer Center and Professor of Medicine, Oncology, and Epidemiology at Emory University School of Medicine. He is interviewed about the ever-increasing use of PSA screening in the face of so much uncertainty about its value.

Napoli: Does the popularity of PSA screening concern you?

Dr. Brawley: First of all, I’m not against prostate cancer screening. I’m against telling people that it is well established; and that it works; and that it saves lives when the evidence that supports those statements simply does not exist. I’m a tremendous supporter of the real American Cancer Society (ACS) recommendation, which is: Within the physician-patient relationship, men should be offered PSA screening and should be informed of the potential risks, as well as the potential benefits and be allowed to make a choice.

Napoli: Do you think fully informing men about PSA screening happens very often?

Dr. Brawley: I think it rarely happens. Many doctors are uninformed, and that’s a big problem. My great concern is people being misled. I routinely follow the prostate cancer screening recommendations of 18 organizations in the U.S., Canada, and Western Europe. The two most pro-screening recommendations are those of the ACS and the American Urologic Association. Both of whom say it should be offered to men; men should be informed of the potential risks and the potential benefits; and they be allowed to make a choice. The ACS does not recommend that men of normal risk be offered mass screening. There’s a distinction between what is done within a doctor/patient relationship at a doctor’s office and mass screening.

Napoli: What is the difference?

Dr. Brawley: Mass screening takes place at a booth at a mall where screening is offered to anyone who comes by and wants screening. In the last few years, there has been screening on the floor of the Republican National Convention, health fairs at the mall, [TV] channel this or channel that will have a health fair with prostate cancer screening. Yet there is no organization that endorses mass screening because of the concern that you can’t have informed consent.

Napoli: If policy makers aren’t promoting the test, who is?

Dr. Brawley: The British Medical Journal recently published an article about how several of the leading prostate cancer survivor organizations [based in the U.S.] that do a lot of the pushing of screening are funded by the makers of the PSA screening kits. And, indeed, [these survivor organizations] do things that the Food and Drug Administration won’t let the manufacturers do—like make promises that there are only benefits from prostate cancer screening. Many of these prostate survivor organizations that I’m critical of—that take drug company money—offer mass screening.

Napoli: You were once quoted in The New York Times saying that 30-40% of men whose cancers appear to have been confined to the prostate at diagnosis will recur soon after treatment.

Dr. Brawley: Yes, this [brings up] one of the lies perpetrated about prostate cancer. If you look at the prostate cancer outcomes from a huge study conducted by the National Cancer Institute, close to 40% of men who undergo a radical prostatectomy will have a PSA relapse within two years. This means that they had disease that was outside of the prostate that was not obvious to the surgeon or the pathologist. It means that if the man lives long enough, metastatic disease will kill him.

Napoli: The public is always told that early detection is lifesaving. How true do you think that is for prostate cancer?

Dr. Brawley: If you have a group of men diagnosed as a result of PSA screening, 30-40% don’t need to know that they have prostate cancer because it’s meaningless in terms of risk to their health. And for somewhere between 30% and 40% of the men with prostate cancer, no matter what [treatment is given], the disease is not curable. And then maybe there are about 20% who actually benefit.

Napoli: And there’s no way to know which type of prostate cancer you have.

Dr. Brawley: That’s right.

Napoli: What about African American men, who as a group, are at a particularly high risk for prostate cancer? PSA testing is thought to be advisable for them at an earlier age.

Dr. Brawley: The proportion of black men in Rocky Feuer’s paper [for the Journal of the National Cancer Institute] who don’t need to know they have prostate cancer was over 40%, compared to 30% of white guys. The reason it’s higher for black men is that they have so many other competing causes of death. The other issue is this: It’s a principle of cancer screening that, unfortunately, many of the advocates of screening just don’t comprehend, and that is, the more aggressive cancers are less likely to benefit from screening. There are people out there who say we must screen black men because they have more aggressive prostate cancer. [These screening proponents] do not realize that they are saying, in effect, because prostate cancer screening is less likely to benefit black men, then we must screen black men.

Napoli: You recently published a medical journal article about informed consent and the PSA test.

Dr. Brawley: Yes, the problem I have is that people are not open and honest about all the controversies, and this extends to people being not open and honest about the treatments, once prostate cancer is diagnosed. Men tend to get railroaded toward radical prostatectomy or to external-beam radiation, or to seed implants.

Napoli: Since there’s no evidence that any one of these treatments is superior to another or superior to no treatment, for that matter, where do you suggest men go for unbiased information?

Dr. Brawley: First of all, I think we should tell men what is scientifically known and what is scientifically not known and what is believed and label them accordingly. [As for credible sources of information,] the National Cancer Institute’s PDQ treatment statements at www.cancer.gov are good [call 800/4-CANCER]. So is the ACS’s information. And by the way, we at Emory have figured out that if we screen 1,000 men at the North Lake Mall this coming Saturday, we could bill Medicare and insurance companies for $4.9 million in health care costs [for biopsies, tests, prostatectomies, etc]. But the real money comes later—-from the medical care the wife will get in the next three years because Emory cares about her man, and from the money we get when he comes to Emory’s emergency room when he gets chest pain because we screened him three years ago.

Napoli: You’re saying that screening creates long-term customers. So, did Emory Healthcare decide to go ahead with the free PSA screening on Saturday?

Dr. Brawley: No, we don’t screen any more at Emory, once I became head of Cancer Control. It bothered me, though, that my P.R. and money people could tell me how much money we would make off screening, but nobody could tell me if we could save one life. As a matter of fact, we could have estimated how many men we would render impotent…but we didn’t. It’s a huge ethical issue.

Posted in Cancer, Men's Health, Screening | Tagged: , , , | Comments Off

« Previous Entries
 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 49 other followers