As Featured at The Best Years in Life
Studies Find Prostate Screening Fails to Save Lives, Causes Unnecessary Risks 95% of the Time
Reported by Tony Isaacs
Two large studies published online this month in the New England Journal of Medicine have found that the PSA blood test used to screen for prostate cancer saves few lives and can lead to risky and unnecessary treatments for 95% of the men who are screened. Dr. Otis Brawley, the chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society, was quoted in the New York Times as saying that the two studies — one in Europe and the other in the United States — are “some of the most important studies in the history of men’s health.” The PSA (prostate-specific antigen) test, which measures a protein released by prostate cells, does what it is supposed to do — indicates a cancer might be present, leading to biopsies to determine if there is a tumor. Most of the cancers tend to grow very slowly and are never a threat and, with the faster-growing ones, even early diagnosis might be too late. Until the release of the results of the two new studies, it has been difficult to know whether finding prostate cancer early saves lives. Both studies have confirmed that in most instances it does not. The findings, which are the first based on robust, independently audited evidence, and randomized studies, confirmed some longstanding concerns about the wisdom of prostate screening and indicated that the practice of widespread prostate screening may result in far more harm than benefits. Prostate cancer treatment can result in impotence and incontinence when surgery is used to destroy the prostate, and, at times, painful defecation or chronic diarrhea when the treatment is radiation. In addition, many believe that the practice of cancer biopsies often leads to the spread and more rapid development of cancer. The European study, the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC), commenced in the early 1990's and involved 182,000 men in eight countries – Belgium, Finland, France, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland - with an overall follow-up of up to 12 years. The other study, by the National Cancer Institute, involved nearly 77,000 men at 10 medical centers in the United States. Although both studies are continuing, the results so far are considered significant and the most definitive to date. In both studies, participants were randomly assigned to be screened — or not — with the PSA test and in each study the two groups were followed for more than a decade while researchers counted deaths from prostate cancer, asking whether screening made a difference. In the European study, for every man whose death was prevented within a decade of having a PSA test 48 men were told they had prostate cancer and needlessly treated for it, and the study found that there were only seven fewer prostate cancer deaths for every 10,000 men screened and followed for nine years. The American study, found no reduction in deaths from prostate cancer after most of the men had been followed for 10 years. Instead, by seven years the death rate was 13 percent lower for the unscreened group. Sources Included: NY Times, NEJM, ScienceDaily
there actually is a lot of debate within western medicine as to how to approach prostate cancer screening, and like most of western medicine nowadays, most err on the side of being more aggresive, because you get sued otherwise
" But doctor, isn't there a simple blood test you could have done to check for prostate cancer? Why didn't you do it for my client?"
bam, $7 million settlement
It would seem to me that the risk of being sued would be even greater if the doctor failed to report the finding of the new study and the patient ended up being one of the 48 out of 49 patients who were subjected to unnecessary risks and harm that ended up being treated for prostate cancer with no benefits in added lifespan.
The "aggressive screening" is a pretty flimsy excuse really. It is one of the major ones put forward for breast cancer screening, even though indications are that more cancer is caused by mammograms than is successfully treated.
As Raynbo says, Doctors are well educated and in the loop. They don't buck the system because the system is set up to make money for them by managing illness, not healing or preventing it. A very few courageous ones move from mainstream medicine to naturopathic medicine because they see the very plain truth: they have been lied to about both mainstream drugs and treatments as well as the effectiveness of diet and nutrition and natural supplements. I know several such doctors. They are the true miracle healers Jon Barron refers to in his book "The Miracle Doctors".