PSA test for prostate cancer not recommended: panel

Related Topics

CHICAGO | Fri Oct 7, 2011 6:19pm EDT

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Doctors criticized proposals by a government-backed panel recommending against prostate cancer screening in healthy men -- saying they went too far and may put some men at risk of the deadly cancer.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which advises the government on health prevention measures, on Friday downgraded its recommendation on prostate cancer screening to a "D," which means it recommends against the service because "there is moderate or high certainty that the service has no net benefit or that the harms outweigh the benefits."

It had previously said there was not enough evidence to make a call on the use of prostate-specific antigen, or PSA, tests that measure levels in the blood of a protein.

The task force made its recommendation based on a review of scientific evidence that suggested the benefits of fewer cancer deaths was overshadowed by potential serious side effects from treating a cancer that might never have caused any harm.

The same panel caused a media storm in 2009 after it recommended doctors scale back on routine mammograms for women in their 40s and 50s.

"Prostate cancer remains the second-leading cause of cancer death in the United States," Dr. Scott Eggener, a surgeon who specializes in prostate cancer at the University of Chicago.

He said while not perfect, PSA screening has definitely saved lives, noting that widespread PSA screening in the United States has resulted in a 30 percent decrease in death rates when adjusted for men's ages.

Several European clinical trials have also shown PSA screening saves lives, Eggener said.

"Put simply, when PSA screening is used, fewer men develop metastatic prostate cancer or die from it," he said.

SEVERAL CAUSES OF HIGH PSA

High or increasing levels of PSA can indicate an increased risk for prostate cancer, but elevated PSA levels can be caused by other things too, such as infections, an enlarged prostate or even recent ejaculation.

Studies have shown that widespread use of PSA tests has resulted in high rates of false positives and overtreatment for cancers that might never have caused harm.

And the treatments -- usually surgery and radiation -- are not benign. They often result in impotence and incontinence.

Simply being diagnosed with prostate cancer can cause anxiety and harm. A study by researchers at Harvard and Brigham & Women's Hospital in Boston last year found that being diagnosed with prostate cancer roughly doubles the risk of suicide or death from a heart attack.

Results of studies looking at the benefits of widespread prostate cancer screening have been mixed, according to the conclusions of a review of studies set to be published next week but released early by the Annals of Internal Medicine.

That review, which is used by the task force to make its recommendations, noted that of the five screening trials it studied, the two largest and highest-quality studies reported conflicting results. One found screening was associated with reduced prostate cancer deaths compared with no screening in men age 55 to 69 after nine years.

The other found no statistically significant benefit after 10 years. And of the men who had three or four rounds of screening, the false positive rate was 12 to 13 percent.

"Prostate-specific antigen-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," the report concluded.

TOO DRASTIC

Critics said the studies were too short and argued that there is evidence that PSA screening saves lives.

"I think they are a little premature," said Dr. Andrew Lee, a radiation oncologist at University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center.

Lee said moving from saying there is not enough information to saying a test is recommended is too drastic given that the evidence is so inconclusive.

"I know some of the studies did look bad," Lee said. "In my personal review of the literature, there are arguments both ways. If that is the case, as a physician I would err on the side of being more conservative.

"I don't think the data is at all conclusive to make such a strong recommendation as a 'D' rating," he said.

Dr. Herbert Lepor, a urology professor at New York University School of Medicine, said the claim that screening studies fail to show a benefit is inaccurate, pointing to a Scandinavian study with 14 years years of follow up that showed screening cut prostate cancer deaths by 50 percent.

"The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is a group of primary care physicians like pediatricians and OB/GYNs who never treat prostate cancer. They have simply misinterpreted the studies and have not seen men die of this fatal disease," Lepor said.

The proposed guidelines are meant to discourage PSA testing in healthy men; they do not apply to men suspected of having prostate cancer.

They had been scheduled to be released in the Annals of Internal Medicine on Monday, but leaks of the recommendations to news outlets forced the group to post the guidelines early. It was first reported by CNN on Thursday.

The recommendations will be available for a 30-day comment period before final treatment guidelines are released.

According to the American Cancer Society, about 1 man in 6 will be diagnosed with prostate cancer in his lifetime. More than 2 million U.S. men who have been diagnosed with prostate cancer at some point are still alive today.

(Editing by Jackie Frank)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (6)
SuefromSault wrote:
This is no surprise. Most women over 60 know that most men who have had extensive prostate biopsies have ruined sex lives and since men lie a lot about sex and tend to blame their wives when “things don’t work out” this has been a hidden problem. For men who don’t like sex (because of early training or because it “leaves them out of control” the fear of cancer can override their ability to deal with reality (just as this fear does for women who worry about breast cancer) but it is good to see some real science displayed to help those of us who are more in touch with reality to counteract the pressure from the medical establishment for aggressive (and damaging) approaches to both these problems.

Oct 07, 2011 10:34am EDT  --  Report as abuse
sbagla wrote:
The Panel at the US Preventative Services is made of up people who dont universally diagnose or treat patients with prostate cancer. Having them decide that American men should not have a screening test for cancer is like having your car mechanic tell you that your roof is okay. This is another example of how government appointed personnel are shaping what care american citizens deserve. Why is the largest study in the world, done in scandanavia, showing results drastically different than those quoted by our task force? Where does scandanavia stand in regards to the US with preventative and therapeutic health care? In both regards, above the US. Please do not stand for the continued miseducation by this task force. First no mmammograms, and then no PSA test…what’s next, encouriging smoking? 2 of the 3 most deadly forms of cancer have been targeted to lower cost, at the expense of americans. thank you task force!

Oct 07, 2011 2:24pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ereilad wrote:
I will never forget a former teacher that died of prostate cancer.
He was a bed fast skeleton in a great deal of pain when he died.
Perhaps the recommendation should be for research to find a more accurate means of diagnosis, without the current biopsy procedure?

Oct 07, 2011 6:54pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.