Skip to content
  • About
  • Contact
  • Contribute
  • Book
  • Careers
  • Podcast
  • Recommended
  • Speaking
  • All
  • Physician
  • Practice
  • Policy
  • Finance
  • Conditions
  • .edu
  • Patient
  • Meds
  • Tech
  • Social
  • Video
    • All
    • Physician
    • Practice
    • Policy
    • Finance
    • Conditions
    • .edu
    • Patient
    • Meds
    • Tech
    • Social
    • Video
    • About
    • Contact
    • Contribute
    • Book
    • Careers
    • Podcast
    • Recommended
    • Speaking

Why more cancer screening may not be productive

Richard Just, MD
Conditions
November 9, 2011
Share
Tweet
Share

The longer I continue in practice, the more complex it becomes.  I thought advances in our understanding of the molecular basis of cancer would clarify decision making ; instead answers have led to more questions.  In the spirit of the immortal Henny Youngman:  Take the issue of cancer screening, please.

The story of screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) and prostate cancer has many similarities.  The primary screening and diagnostic tool during my training years was the digital rectal exam (DRE).  In CRC the manual examination was (and still is) supplemented with stool occult blood testing.  A positive result usually leads to an invasive procedure, e.g., barium enema or colonoscopy.  Not fun procedures.  And if the test is falsely positive, not only is unnecessary time wasted, cost expended, and anxiety generated, but severe morbidity (bowel perforation) and possible mortality can result.

Enter the great hope:  the carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA).  Finally a simple blood test that would solve all our problems.  It was originally marketed as a specific screening test that should save lives.  But within a short period of time, it was discovered that a positive test wasn’t specific for CRC and a negative test did not always rule it out.  CEA determinations are still useful in following patients treated for CRC to get an idea if they are responding or not.  But, they are not reliable enough in diagnosing CRC let alone reducing mortality from the disease.  Thus, CEA testing is not recommended as a screening test for the general population.

Contrary to the experience with CEA, PSA (prostate specific antigen) screening for prostate cancer has been made available to all middle age and elderly men for 20 years.  Its utility has not been seriously questioned until the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) reviewed two negative clinical trials and recommended that PSA not be used to screen the population at large.  As with changes in recommendations involving screening mammograms made by USPSTF two years previously, response and pushback has been vocal and immediate.  But, these two trials demonstrated that PSA-based screening of the general population does not save lives.

I found the article “Prostate-Cancer Screening — What the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Left Out” in the New England Journal of Medicine frames the debate about screening into its proper perspective.  They point out that PSA is not a cancer-specific protein and there is a wide variation in aggressiveness across the spectrum of prostate cancer.  Therefore, “controversy and debate about PSA screening were predictable from the outset.”  They cite three issues the panel didn’t address even though they “agree fully with the task force’s analysis”:

  1. Every guideline recommends discussing the benefit/risk ratio and individualizing screening decisions taking into account patient values and preferences.  In this era of consumerism, a laudable approach.  However, before the publication of the two trials mentioned above, no data existed to support screening.  So a discussion based on evidence was impossible. “Thus, patients were not really making informed decisions, and office-based discussion of the pros and cons of PSA testing was essentially a charade.  Instead, most patients’ decisions reflected their general concerns about cancer or their general inclination to accept (or resist) medical interventions”.

I lost count of the number of times lengthy discussions ended with patient and family saying that I was the doctor and should make decisions for them.  Even in this age of patient advocacy.  As the NEJM article points out, the two screening trials only add to the confusion in that one did not demonstrate any mortality benefit while the other demonstrated a small reduction in prostate cancer related mortality, and there were differences in methodology between them.

  1. Management of individual and serial PSA values is inconsistent and unpredictable even within practices.  Physicians are trying to adopt reproducible practices, but “the guidelines are vague precisely because the limitations of PSA screening preclude the kind of rational, standardized, evidence-based algorithm that should inform any routine preventive intervention”.  When one of my colleagues nonchalantly proclaims to practice Evidence-Based Medicine, I remain skeptical.
  2. It has been estimated that $5.2 million is spent screening everyone to prevent one death from prostate cancer.  This does not include excessive PSA testing and extra encounters.  So some estimate the actual cost to be more than double this figure.  The authors argue that there are other more pressing uses for this money.  The argument that Black men, who have a higher incidence of prostate cancer than whites, should be screened.  Statistics don’t bear this out since the proportion of deaths from prostate cancer in 2007 was 3.3% in blacks and 2.3% in whites.  The difference is not great enough to justify race related screening, even if we knew how to do it.

A New York Times article entitled, Considering When It Might Be Best Not to Know About Cancer, raises the possibility that more screening may not be productive and could possibly be harmful.  In 2009, the USPSTF, charged with reviewing evidence and publishing screening guidelines, recommended that screening mammograms not be performed on women in their 40’s, and they be reduced to every other year up to age 74.  A similar backlash occurred.

Richard Just is an oncologist who blogs at @JustOncology.

Submit a guest post and be heard on social media’s leading physician voice.

Prev

Why can’t the United States have a smarter health care system?

November 8, 2011 Kevin 10
…
Next

Including communication as a system in work rounds

November 9, 2011 Kevin 0
…

Tagged as: Oncology/Hematology, Patients, Primary Care, Specialist

Post navigation

< Previous Post
Why can’t the United States have a smarter health care system?
Next Post >
Including communication as a system in work rounds

ADVERTISEMENT

More by Richard Just, MD

  • a desk with keyboard and ipad with the kevinmd logo

    Why we need to suffer the growing pains of electronic health records

    Richard Just, MD
  • a desk with keyboard and ipad with the kevinmd logo

    An American oncologist looks at health in China

    Richard Just, MD
  • a desk with keyboard and ipad with the kevinmd logo

    Being insured does not equate to being covered

    Richard Just, MD

More in Conditions

  • Coconut oil’s role in Alzheimer’s and depression

    Marc Arginteanu, MD
  • Ancient health secrets for modern life

    Larry Kaskel, MD
  • How the internet broke the doctor-parent trust

    Wendy L. Hunter, MD
  • Mpox isn’t over: A silent epidemic is growing

    Melvin Sanicas, MD
  • How your family system secretly shapes your health

    Su Yeong Kim, PhD
  • The human case for preserving the nipple after mastectomy

    Thomas Amburn, MD
  • Most Popular

  • Past Week

    • The human case for preserving the nipple after mastectomy

      Thomas Amburn, MD | Conditions
    • Nuclear verdicts and rising costs: How inflation is reshaping medical malpractice claims

      Robert E. White, Jr. & The Doctors Company | Policy
    • How new loan caps could destroy diversity in medical education

      Caleb Andrus-Gazyeva | Policy
    • IMGs are the future of U.S. primary care

      Adam Brandon Bondoc, MD | Physician
    • From nurse practitioner to leader in quality improvement [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • The crushing bureaucracy that’s driving independent physicians to extinction

      Scott Tzorfas, MD | Physician
  • Past 6 Months

    • Health equity in Inland Southern California requires urgent action

      Vishruth Nagam | Policy
    • How restrictive opioid policies worsen the crisis

      Kayvan Haddadan, MD | Physician
    • Why primary care needs better dermatology training

      Alex Siauw | Conditions
    • New student loan caps could shut low-income students out of medicine

      Tom Phan, MD | Physician
    • Why pain doctors face unfair scrutiny and harsh penalties in California

      Kayvan Haddadan, MD | Physician
    • Love, birds, and fries: a story of innocence and connection

      Dr. Damane Zehra | Physician
  • Recent Posts

    • The diseconomics of scale: How Indian pharma’s race to scale backfires on U.S. patients

      Adwait Chafale | Meds
    • Healing from medical training by learning to trust your body again [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • How tragedy shaped a medical career

      Ronald L. Lindsay, MD | Physician
    • A doctor’s guide to preparing for your death

      Joseph Pepe, MD | Physician
    • Coconut oil’s role in Alzheimer’s and depression

      Marc Arginteanu, MD | Conditions
    • How policy and stigma block addiction treatment

      Mariana Ndrio, MD | Physician

Subscribe to KevinMD and never miss a story!

Get free updates delivered free to your inbox.


Find jobs at
Careers by KevinMD.com

Search thousands of physician, PA, NP, and CRNA jobs now.

Learn more

View 2 Comments >

Founded in 2004 by Kevin Pho, MD, KevinMD.com is the web’s leading platform where physicians, advanced practitioners, nurses, medical students, and patients share their insight and tell their stories.

Social

  • Like on Facebook
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Connect on Linkedin
  • Subscribe on Youtube
  • Instagram

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Most Popular

  • Past Week

    • The human case for preserving the nipple after mastectomy

      Thomas Amburn, MD | Conditions
    • Nuclear verdicts and rising costs: How inflation is reshaping medical malpractice claims

      Robert E. White, Jr. & The Doctors Company | Policy
    • How new loan caps could destroy diversity in medical education

      Caleb Andrus-Gazyeva | Policy
    • IMGs are the future of U.S. primary care

      Adam Brandon Bondoc, MD | Physician
    • From nurse practitioner to leader in quality improvement [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • The crushing bureaucracy that’s driving independent physicians to extinction

      Scott Tzorfas, MD | Physician
  • Past 6 Months

    • Health equity in Inland Southern California requires urgent action

      Vishruth Nagam | Policy
    • How restrictive opioid policies worsen the crisis

      Kayvan Haddadan, MD | Physician
    • Why primary care needs better dermatology training

      Alex Siauw | Conditions
    • New student loan caps could shut low-income students out of medicine

      Tom Phan, MD | Physician
    • Why pain doctors face unfair scrutiny and harsh penalties in California

      Kayvan Haddadan, MD | Physician
    • Love, birds, and fries: a story of innocence and connection

      Dr. Damane Zehra | Physician
  • Recent Posts

    • The diseconomics of scale: How Indian pharma’s race to scale backfires on U.S. patients

      Adwait Chafale | Meds
    • Healing from medical training by learning to trust your body again [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • How tragedy shaped a medical career

      Ronald L. Lindsay, MD | Physician
    • A doctor’s guide to preparing for your death

      Joseph Pepe, MD | Physician
    • Coconut oil’s role in Alzheimer’s and depression

      Marc Arginteanu, MD | Conditions
    • How policy and stigma block addiction treatment

      Mariana Ndrio, MD | Physician

MedPage Today Professional

An Everyday Health Property Medpage Today
  • Terms of Use | Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • DMCA Policy
All Content © KevinMD, LLC
Site by Outthink Group

Why more cancer screening may not be productive
2 comments

Comments are moderated before they are published. Please read the comment policy.

Loading Comments...