Richardcyoung.com

The Online Home of Author and Investor, Dick Young

  • Home
  • How We Are Different
  • Debbie Young
  • About Us
    • Foundation Principles
    • Contributors
  • Investing
    • You’ve Read The Last Issue of Intelligence Report, Now What?
  • Your Survival Guy
  • The Great Reset
  • The Swiss Way
  • My Rifles
  • Dividends and Compounding
  • Your Security
  • Dick Young
  • Key West
  • Paris
  • Dick’s R&B Top 100
  • Liberty & Freedom Map
  • Bank Credit & Money
  • Your Survival Guy’s Super States
  • NNT & Cholesterol
  • Your Health
  • Ron Paul
  • US Treasury Yield Curve: My Favorite Investor Tool
  • Anti-Gun Control
  • Anti-Digital Currency
  • World Gold Mine Production

Prostate Cancer: Should Men Get a PSA Screen

April 29, 2014 By Richard C. Young

the nnt rating systemHere the NNT Group offers compelling research and specific answers.

Narrative: The prostate is a kiwi-sized gland that secretes fluid into male semen. The cells of the prostate have a propensity to become cancerous: U.S. men have a 16% chance of being diagnosed with prostate CA in their lifetime and a 3% chance of dying from prostate cancer.1 Autopsy studies have shown that up to 2/3 of elderly men die with asymptomatic prostate cancer. It appears that if they live long enough most men will develop prostate cancer, though it will not affect their longevity. Given the high incidence of prostate cancer, there have been aggressive efforts to screen patients with the hopes of diagnosing local (non-metastatic) cancer that can be treated before it progresses. Elevated serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, a protein found in the prostate, are loosely correlated with prostate cancer. Routine PSA screening was widely adopted on the theory that tracking PSA levels would identify prostate cancer and save lives; broad screening therefore began in many Western countries without evidence from major randomized trials to support this theory. In the systematic review2 summarized here researchers pooled the data from 6 randomized controlled trials with a total of 387,286 patients (poorly designed trials were excluded). The studies randomized patients to screening with PSA versus no screening. Pre-defined outcomes of interest were: All cause mortality and death from prostate cancer, diagnosis of prostate cancer, effect of screening on stage at diagnosis, false positive and false negative results, harms of screening, quality of life, and cost effectiveness. All cause mortality and prostate cancer mortality were statistically unaffected by PSA screening. There were more cancers diagnosed in the PSA screened groups (6.4% versus 4.4%), suggesting a 2% difference (and a NNT of 50) for diagnosing a cancer in the absence of a mortality benefit. There was a slight increase in diagnosis of stage 1 and 2 prostate cancer, but no increase in the diagnosis of higher, or late stage (3, 4, and 5) prostate cancer. Many of the trials did not report complications or quality of life measures. One trial3 reported a complication rate of 0.7% for prostate biopsy including infection, bleeding, clot formation, and urinary difficulties. Another4 reported 76% of PSA ‘positives’ to be false positives, verified by subsequent prostate biopsy.

The ERSPC trial (182,160 men in 8 European countries) published updated follow-up data in 2012.4 This randomized controlled trial showed no overall mortality benefit to PSA testing but a reduction in prostate cancer mortality of 1.07 deaths per 1000 men enrolled. To prevent one death from prostate cancer, 1055 men would need to be screened and 37 cancers would need to be detected, however to reiterate, overall mortality was unaffected by screening.

Caveats: The quality of the mortality data in the systematic review was considered “moderate” by the GRADE approach (a method of grading the quality of the data; see The GRADE Working Group). The quality of the data for diagnosing cancer and effect of screening on stage of cancer was “low”, and there unfortunately remains no good data to answer whether PSA screening is useful for high-risk populations or persons. This review also did not address quality of life factors. Findings in the USPSTF review of these and other PSA data suggest significant increases in anxiety due to false positive PSA results. With false positive rates of 75% (other sources have similar or higher rates) it is clear that this is not a specific test. Most men who undergo prostate biopsy do so needlessly. Significant complications from biopsy are uncommon, though even at low incidence the high rate of screening ultimately means that thousands of men incur complications including bleeding and infection. In addition, financial costs and short term pain should not be overlooked, despite being untracked in these data. More concerning is the number of men who undergo unnecessary prostatectomy, a procedure known to be associated with long-term sequelae: erectile dysfunction (36%), urinary incontinence (28%), serious cardiovascular events (3%), vascular events (1-2%), and treatment-related mortality (0.5%).5

Why does detection of prostate cancer not lead to increased survival? This is not clear, but the data from this large review strongly argue against routine PSA screening in the asymptomatic man. The strategy of routinely screening all men with PSA tests leads to interventions that are not saving lives and may be causing harm. The USPSTF recommendation has stirred many partisans on both sides of the issue. 6,7 PSA supporters have criticized the USPSTF decision (faulting problems with the PLCO and ERSPC trials) and some have suggested complex modeling to better identify candidates for PSA screening. We at theNNT.com side with the large body of RCT evidence, the current gold standard, and agree with the USPSTF recommendation that PSA testing, as investigated in trials, is not beneficial. It seems that the position of the American Urological Association (AUA), a long time staunch supporter of routine PSA testing, is evolving in this direction as well,8 a change that we applaud.

Time and further evidence may identify a group of asymptomatic men who benefit from PSA screening, however at this time such a cohort has not been elucidated. Medical providers who continue to use the PSA test should ensure that their patients understand the risk/benefit of the test through shared decision-making, a position that the AUA has moved toward as well.

Author: Joshua Quaas, MD

Published/Updated: May 23, 2013

 

If you’re willing to fight for Main Street America, click here to sign up for my free weekly email.

Related Posts

  • What Country Has the Lowest Prostate Cancer Rate?
  • You Can Beat Prostate Cancer And You Don't Need Surgery To Do It
  • CT Scan Cancer Risk
  • Author
  • Recent Posts
Richard C. Young
Richard C. Young
Richard C. Young is the editor of Young's World Money Forecast, and a contributing editor to both Richardcyoung.com and Youngresearch.com.
Richard C. Young
Latest posts by Richard C. Young (see all)
  • CBDCs Not “Just Another Form of Money” - June 6, 2023
  • Concentrate on Dividend Record and Compounding - June 6, 2023
  • Progressive Liberalism Has Dragged America near Ruination - June 6, 2023

Dick Young’s Must Reads

  • Protection While Traveling in France
  • Warning! Your Survival Guy’s on a Boil Water Advisory
  • Mises and Rothbard Finally Get Their Due
  • America’s Number One Patriot: Naples Florida’s Alfie Oakes
  • Why Black Lives Matter Needs to Be Shut Down
  • Marry Compound Interest, Divorce Market Timing
  • California’s Progressive Liberals Have Created a Monster
  • Your Cash Swept into Your Broker’s Bank Account!
  • Conflict Between Democratic Sovereignty and Transnational Progressivism (Globalism)
  • ACTRESS: “Liberal Politicians Are Ruining Cities”

Our Most Popular Posts

  • The Party Is Going Off the Rails
  • June Is Retirement Compounders Month
  • My Nephew Graduates, and I’m Larry the Cable Guy
  • Why Is the Media So Terrified of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s Ideas?
  • Is This the Summer of the Tick Fest
  • The Nickel Pickle from EVs
  • Your Survival Guy’s Take on ChatGPT and AI
  • CBDCs Not “Just Another Form of Money”
  • Joe Biden’s Death Warrant for Fossil Fuel Plants
  • Rewarding Loyalty with Ridicule

Disclosure

RSS Youngresearch.com

  • Your Survival Guy’s Take on ChatGPT and AI
  • CBDCs Not “Just Another Form of Money”
  • The Push to Diversify Away from China
  • ALLIGATOR MARKET: Calm Surface Hides Danger Below
  • Will OPEC+ Cuts and New Technology Revive U.S. Shale?
  • Successful Investing Is a Mindset
  • My Nephew Graduates, and I’m Larry the Cable Guy
  • Does the Government Have a Plan to “Sneak Through” CBDCs?
  • OPEC+: Saudi Arabia To Cut 1M Barrels of Oil Production
  • California Is Driving These Wealthy Businesses Out of the State

RSS Yoursurvivalguy.com

  • Your Survival Guy’s Take on ChatGPT and AI
  • ALLIGATOR MARKET: Calm Surface Hides Danger Below
  • My Nephew Graduates, and I’m Larry the Cable Guy
  • California Is Driving These Wealthy Businesses Out of the State
  • Rome, Paris, U.S.A.: Global Crisis in Confidence
  • Your Survival Guy’s Best Insider’s Guide to Rome
  • What Is a Fiduciary Duty? Are You Working with a Fiduciary?
  • Survive and Thrive June 2023: Your Survival Guy in Rome 30-Years A.B. (After Babson)
  • Birth Rates in France Worst Since Post-WWII Era
  • Your Survival Guy Felt Like a U.N. Worker in Rome

Is This the Summer of the Tick Fest

Your Survival Guy’s Take on ChatGPT and AI

CBDCs Not “Just Another Form of Money”

Concentrate on Dividend Record and Compounding

ALLIGATOR MARKET: Calm Surface Hides Danger Below

The Sham Claims of Lab-Grown “Meat”

Copyright © 2023 | Terms & Conditions | About Us | Dick Young | Archives