Dr. Otis Brawley, Chief Medical Officer for the American Cancer Society
Posted on 03/05/2010 8:57:34 PM PST by FreeReign
ATLANTA — The American Cancer Society is urging doctors to make clearer to men that the test used to screen for prostate cancer has limits and may lead to unnecessary treatments that do more harm than good.
The cancer society has not recommended routine screening for most men since the mid-1990s, and that is not changing. But its new advice goes farther to warn of the limitations of the PSA blood test that millions of American men get now. It also says digital rectal exams should be an option rather than part of a standard screening.
(Excerpt) Read more at cleveland.com ...
As pointed out in Post 18, the issue is quite complicated. I don't think I could lay my fingers on it right now but I remember an article posted here on FR about a research study which looked at the prostates of teenage boys that had been killed in accidents. It turned out that something like 25% of them were found to have cancer. So... if you are a guy, you say "now what"? There are a few points that are difficult to rationalize so that a reasonable decision can be made: 1. Virtually all men age 50 or so likely have prostate cancer cells, 2. It is well known to be so slow growing that something else will likely kill you first, 3. A screening test such as a multi-point biopsy (grid of 16 samples) will actually do harm to the prostate, 4. That same screening test may actually miss the cancer cells.
So with the four above points in mind, what is a reasonable course of action for a man of age 50? No easy choices there, let me tell you.
My doctor performs both when I have my physical.
When the false positive rate is too high and the cost of false positives increases, testing recommendations should change.
Certainly, the following recommendation is not a good one.
I'm pushing sixty. I get the PSA test every six months. The finger as well. I don't like either. But if it avoids a problem then I will put up with both. And what is the harm from taking the tests. Hell, if Obama gets his way this will be moot anyway.
I wouldn’t trust him for any reason.
When you get the study results showing that it's saving one life out of 48, while subjecting the other 47 to the side effects of treatment. The big problem is that there's currently no way to tell the difference between the tumors you can leave alone and those that are going to become aggressive.
It’s in the 90’s, and so’s the percentage.
I agree. My own GP (Internist and Hemotologist) told me, after I tested at a low PSA number, that he doesn’t do the PSA test on himself. He said that with the tendency for false positives doctors could possibly be subjecting their patients to treatments with debilitating side effects (incontinence/impotence). He stated (restated)that a physician’s first duty is to do no harm. That he takes seriously his Hippocratic oath is why I find him to be an outstanding physician.
I have to say that I have been fortunate to have selected or been recommended to an outstanding group of physicians and dentists who have as their first principle to care for their patients. I seriously doubt that we would have that under obamacare.
I agree. My own GP (Internist and Hemotologist) told me, after I tested at a low PSA number, that he doesn’t do the PSA test on himself. He said that with the tendency for false positives doctors could possibly be subjecting their patients to treatments with debilitating side effects (incontinence/impotence). He stated (restated)that a physician’s first duty is to do no harm. That he takes seriously his Hippocratic oath is why I find him to be an outstanding physician.
I have to say that I have been fortunate to have selected or been recommended to an outstanding group of physicians and dentists who have as their first principle to care for their patients. I seriously doubt that we would have that under obamacare.
I agree. My own GP (Internist and Hemotologist) told me, after I tested at a low PSA number, that he doesn’t do the PSA test on himself. He said that with the tendency for false positives doctors could possibly be subjecting their patients to treatments with debilitating side effects (incontinence/impotence). He stated (restated)that a physician’s first duty is to do no harm. That he takes seriously his Hippocratic oath is why I find him to be an outstanding physician.
I have to say that I have been fortunate to have selected or been recommended to an outstanding group of physicians and dentists who have as their first principle to care for their patients. I seriously doubt that we would have that under obamacare.
I apologize for the triple post.
I agree with your entire post except the Hippocratic oath reference. “First, do no harm” isn’t in there. It was part of his teachings, though, and it’s even cited in the ACS paper the article is based on.
One isn't subject to (incontinence/impotence) from a false positive PSA. One could be subject to a biopsy from a false positive PSA, but biopsies don't lead to incontinence and impotence, and it's always the patients choice anyway not to get a biopsy.
For those interested, here’s the full paper.
http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/content/full/caac.20066v1
Only once??? ;>)
It appears that the mandate of the study was to just examine the issue of 'screening'. What the report does not do is get into the topic of health alternatives and other related aspects of prostate health.... Things such as foods which men should stay away because of accelerating or aggravating the condition, dietary supplements that men should take, activities that could be related to the frequency of problems or ways of alleviating/delaying the problem, an analysis of all the treatment measures for those men for whom the problems is so serious that it must be dealt with etc. This reporting just deals with the screening issue and the other issues were not examined. I think that most men would at least like to have good information on some of these other issues as well. If for example all one had to do was increase the amount of a particular vitamin to increase the odds that the problem never arises at all, I think most men would want to know that.
More obamacare, before it goes into effect!
It ain’t dead until congress is recessed and we flip at least 1 in Nov, or we will be fighting this battle for 3 more years!
OBAMANOMICS—TRICKLE DOWN DESTRUCTION of the economy
Bambi doesn’t keep his promises...so buyer beware!
SET THEIR LOCAL AND DC LINES ON FIRE!
PLEASE ASK THEM TO REPEAL THE BIG NEW FEES in TRICARE for Life, the retired Military over 65 secondary health ins. which they passed in a DOD bill. They promised our Military these benefits, and our Military have earned them.
Sen Scott Brown’s number is 202-224-4543
Capitol Hill switchboard is 202-224-3121
Lots of local demwit phone numbers on this thread
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2408217/posts
Rename, repackage, rewrite it a tad smaller, and sell another pig in a poke. NO COLAs for granny, retired Military or retired fed employees. BIG NEW fees for Tricare for Life retired over 65 Military’s secondary health ins. (DOD bill already passed, delayed but goes into effect 2011 NEEDS TO BE REPEALED!
OBAMA’s WAR ON SENIORS http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2433867/posts/
New Dem mantra: Woof, woof eat dog food granny....ala let them eat cake.
Obama says slight fix will extend Social Security, http://townhall.com/news/us/2010/02/19/obama_says_slight_fix_will_extend_social_security
Health Care Rationing for Seniors Another Problem in New Obama Plan http://www.lifenews.com/bio3058.html
Medicare tax may apply to investment income (ObamaCare tax hike)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2460988/posts
Obama: No reduced Medicare benefits in health care reform
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/28/obama.health.care/index.html
Will healthcare reform mean cuts in Medicare for seniors?
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2009/1017/will-healthcare-reform-mean-cuts-in-medicare-for-seniors
Health Reform’s Hidden Victims Young people and seniors would pay a high price for ObamaCare.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203517304574306303720472842.html
SOCIALIZED MED THREAD http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2464538/posts
MILITARY & Retired MILITARY
Veterans’ G.I. Bill benefits MIA
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2464680/posts
TRI CARE FOR LIFE This from a google search:
http://economicspolitics.blogspot.com/2009/05/tricare-for-life-is-obama-trying-to.html
This option would help reduce the costs of TFL, as well as costs for Medicare, by introducing minimum out-of pocket requirements for beneficiaries. Under this option, TFL would not cover any of the first $525 of an enrollee’s cost-sharing liabilities for calendar year 2011 and would limit coverage to 50 percent of the next $4,725 in Medicare cost sharing that the beneficiary incurred. (Because all further cost sharing would be covered by TFL, enrollees could not pay more than $2,888 in cost sharing in that year.) http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9925/12-18-HealthOptions.pdf
Bill Would Restrict Veterans’ Health Care Options 11/06/09
Buyer and McKeon Offer Amendments to Protect Veterans and TRICARE Beneficiaries
Congress plans to block Tricare fee increases
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/10/military_tricarefees_blocked_100709w
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/10/military_tricarefees_blocked_100709w/
By Rick Maze - Staff writer, Oct 7, 2009
Tricare fee increases imposed last week by the Defense Department will be repealed by a provision of the compromise 2010 defense authorization bill unveiled Wednesday by House and Senate negotiators.
The fee increases were announced on Sept. 30 and took effect on Oct. 1, but the defense bill, HR 2647, includes a provision barring any fee increases until the start of fiscal 2011.
Retired Army Maj. Gen. Bill Matz, president of the National Association for Uniformed Services, said the announcement of fee increases was shocking considering that the Obama administration promised earlier this year to hold off on any new fee Tricare fee increases until fiscal 2011.
“President Obama and DoD assured NAUS and the entire military family earlier this year that there would rightly be no increases in any Tricare fees” in fiscal 2010, Matz said. “We took them at their word, and I can’t believe that a co-pay increase like this was allowed to go forward,” he added.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.