Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Public health system’ Category

PROSTABLOG NZ: The NZ government needs to add prostate cancer to its health priorities, if a Prostablog poll is any indication.

That was the most popular choice of those voting in the poll, which asked Kiwis what they think the Health Select Committee inquiry into prostate cancer should hear.

The closing date for submissions to the inquiry was today.

Votes in the Prostablog poll numbered only 48, which seems a modest result – until you compare it with a similar poll run recently on America’s most prominent prostate cancer website, the New Prostate Cancer Infolink.

It got only 120 votes, so considering the population difference, we didn’t do too badly.

Notwithstanding the extent of the vote, the Prostablog poll has a clear message for the government:

  • Add prostate cancer to the health priorities (it doesn’t get a mention in the new list announced in May.
  • More money should be committed to prostate cancer research (does anyone know how much is spent now?).
  • It should be compulsory for all GPs to offer prostate cancer tests.
  • Population-based prostate cancer screening is urgently needed.
  • The Ministry of Health should be running a TV campaign like those used to spread the screening message to women about breast and cervical cancer.
  • NZ needs more modern prostate cancer treatment drugs.

The Prostablog poll

What should the prostate community tell the NZ Parliamentary inquiry into prostate cancer?

POLL

Read Full Post »

TonyMAINPROSTABLOG NZ: The NZ parliamentary inquiry into prostate cancer closes off its submissions this Friday…and to mark the occasion, I want to write about a man called Tony.

He’s a mid-50s Kiwi bloke. Friendly, articulate, life-experienced, a bit more adventurous, perhaps, than some.

He and wife Marlene (at right) run an excellent bed and breakfast in Mt Eden, Auckland, under the shadow, almost, of where $300 million of my money is being spent revamping Eden Park for the rugby world cup in 2011.

Tony drove trucks across America for a while, until the mid-2000s. Marlene missed him, so joined up, taking the wheel during daylight. They had a fantastic time.

TonyMAIN2But now they’re back home, with Tony working three jobs as they build up the B & B (left) during the recession.

He runs a disability transport service with his vans, walks people around central Auckland city at night telling them ghost and murder stories, and helps Marlene with the homestay.

By all odds, Tony has a 50% chance of hosting a cancer in his prostate.

He doesn’t know it yet, either way. He hasn’t been checked. He’s been too bloody busy.

But now he’s going to the doc and he’ll endure the finger up his backside and the scratch in his arm.

Why? Because Lin and I stayed with Tony and Marlene last weeked and he got an earful from me about getting checked.

Why am I telling you this?  Because Tony is fairly typical of most of the Kiwi men I know (the ones who haven’t had prostate cancer). They either don’t get tested, get only the PSA, or were tested “once” and think it’ll be fine for a few years.

They are what the Health Select Committee inquiry into prostate cancer screening and testing is about.

Two bitterly opposed protagonists

Anyone who thought NZ’s recent prominent murder trials (Bain, Weatherston, et al) were problematic for their juries, spare a thought for the Health Select Committee.

Not only must it contend with the politics of health care, it also faces two ferociously opposed lobby groups that can each present a compelling case.

On one side will be the NZ prostate community, comprising prostate cancer patients, survivors, some of their medics (GPs, urologists, urology nurses, oncologists, etc), and a vociferous band of patient advocates, the 330-strong Prostate Cancer Foundation.

On the other is the health care bureaucracy, encompassing a heavyweight team of health professionals, managers, advisers, epidemiologists, academics, researchers and various subgroups that include some GPs…and the NZ Cancer Society.

Both will lobby the inquiry with statistics, research, study results, precedents, and on one side, at least, some emotionally gruelling anecdotal evidence.

What will each side say?

The bureaucrats (the Ministry of Health and its pilot fish advisory committees) will say what it has always said: we should not adopt a screening and testing programme like that offered to women for breast and cervical cancer because it will do more harm than good.

Their argument is strong, and is the same one argued by other governments’ medical agencies.

It is this: many men (maybe 50%) will get prostate cancer in their lifetime, but only a few (12% to 16%) will contract a form that has the potential to kill them – and there is, as yet, no way to know (before treatment) which kind a man has got.

They say if there is outright encouragement for all men to be tested, whether they have symptoms or not (most won’t, initially), it will lead to unnecessary treatment.

This would cost the government a lot more as well, some argue, but that’s not a point the bureaucracy will highlight, since it doesn’t sound very humane.

Meantime, leave it to patients to raise such matters with their GPs, then make their own decisions based on facts they glean from consultation and research (ie, Dr Google).

The bureaucrats will say there is good reason to trust GPs to do the right thing.

A survey of nearly 350 general practitioners published in 2003 (GP survey 2003) found 74% would PSA test a 55-year-old man who asked (or presented for an annual check-up), with that number rising to 93% if the man’s family history included prostate or breast cancer.

The prostate community argues that since PSA blood tests became widely available in the 80s there has been significant decline in the number of deaths from prostate cancer, and this could be accelerated if screening and testing were promoted to the whole male population.

They say leaving it up to men to raise prostate testing with their doctors is not good enough.

Some men don’t go to the doctor unless they have to, which is a particular problem with prostate cancer, a devious disease that often shows its face when it’s too late for treatment.

Non-consultation is a factor that may apply particularly to Maori and Pacific Island men: the former have twice the death rate of non-Maori. No statistics are available for PI men, it seems.

The prostate community is concerned that some GPs are confused about their role in the prostate process.

Some refuse to test, some don’t proffer advice unless the patient speaks up first, some offer PSA only, some offer both PSA and digital exam. Some men die as a direct result of such a hit-or-miss system, the PCF says.

The foundation and its medical advisers know many cases of men who discover prostate cancer too late.

These are tragic stories, exemplified by the account being written on this website by Mary about her struggle with the medical profession to get treatment for her husband, John. It’s a heart-breaking tale.

There is some bitterness in this debate.

The prostate community is seen as deeply swayed by the emotional influences of suffering the disease or benefiting from dispensing treatment; the bureaucracy is considered heartless, unduly influenced by statistics, gender-biased, and penny-pinching.

Both sides are gathering their forces as this is written.

The Ministry’s line, probably, is encapsulated in advice it received from its satellite National Screening Advisory Committee this winter, after the committee examined the results of the two large overseas screening studies reported in March.

It recommended the Director General of Health should note that:

a) the benefits of PSA screening for prostate cancer identified in the European trial were small;

b) no benefit of prostate cancer screening was identified in the US trial;

c) both trials identified considerable screening harms related to over-diagnosis and over-treatment;

d) the benefits of PSA screening identified in the European trial were observed using an average screening interval of four years, whereas a screening interval of one to two years is more commonly used in general practice;

e) the utility of prostate screening increases with age;

f) a longer study follow-up period may alter trial results; and

g) a watching brief of these two prostate cancer screening trials should be kept, including similar trials of prostate cancer treatment effectiveness, to inform men about making prostate screening decisions.

There is some inevitability, then, about how this inquiry will proceed.

The Ministry hasn’t changed its stance, and the PCF has grown all the more powerful since it gathered considerable funding from the Movember crusade in 2007.

Which suggests the outcome will be influenced by political expediency. As these things usually are.

It’s not a good time to be appealing to a government that’s busy slashing spending in all sectors.

Read Full Post »

JULY 31: NZ MINISTRY OF HEALTH: A set of guidelines for registered  working in cancer control has just been published by the New Zealand Ministry of Health. READ MORE>

Read Full Post »

JULY 31: David Leonhardt, NEW YORK TIMES: The “prostate cancer test” will determine whether President Obama and Congress put together a bill that begins to fix the fundamental problem with our medical system: the combination of soaring costs and mediocre results. READ MORE>

Read Full Post »

JULY 29: WALL ST JOURNAL HEALTH: Prostate cancer screening and treatment will come under the microscope in the great US government examination of where the health care dollar goes. READ MORE>

Read Full Post »

JULY 21: NEW PROSTATE CANCER INFOLINK: America’s prostate cancer organisations – including Prostate Cancer International – have again taken joint action to bring our voices together to focus on important issues that affect prostate cancer in the ongoing health care reform debate. READ MORE>

Read Full Post »

new-zealand-parliamentJULY 20: PROSTABLOG NZ: New Zealanders have until August 21 to make submissions to the world’s only current parliamentary inquiry into prostate cancer screening.

Terms of reference for the inquiry by the Health Select Committee were announced today. The committee seeks:

1.      A summary of the contemporary literature on the subject including, incidence, mortality, groups at risk, testing options (with particular reference to age and family history, treatment and what other countries are doing).

2.    Opinions from –

  • affected and asymptomatic men, their families, patient advocacy groups including the Prostate Cancer Foundation and the National Screening Advisory Committee;
  • specialist clinicians, radiation oncologists, urologists and general practitioners;
  • epidemiologists, and those involved with the Ministry of Health, New Zealand Guidelines Group.

3.    Best methods to promote awareness for early detection and treatment of prostate cancer.

4.    A cost benefit analysis, if appropriate.

READ MORE>

Read Full Post »

JULY 17: AL.COM: MOBILE, Alabama:  The Mobile County Health Department is offering free prostate cancer screenings, by appointment, through July 31. READ MORE>

Read Full Post »

JULY 9: NEW YORK TIMES:  The prostate cancer test will determine whether President Obama and Congress put together a bill that begins to fix the fundamental problem with the US medical system: the combination of soaring costs and mediocre results. If they don’t, the medical system will remain deeply troubled, no matter what other improvements they make. READ MORE>

Read Full Post »

JULY 3: PROSTABLOG NZ: In what seems to be exquisite timing, NZ’s parliamentary select committee on health is starting an inquiry into prostate cancer screening – just as some of the best recent analysis of screening emerges in the US.

The latest informative discussion comes from Mike Scott at the New Prostate Cancer Infolink website, one of the leading American aggregators of up-to-date information.

As global debate hots up following recent publication in a medical journal called CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians of an article about screening and an accompanying editorial, Scott today makes some interesting points:

  • Media reporting of this latest look at the two large randomised studies is well wide of the mark.
  • What the article actually makes clear is we just do not know how best to use the tools currently available to test an individual man so as to ascertain with accuracy his real risk for clinically significant prostate cancer.
  • So — surprise, surprise — we need better tests, as America’s Prostate Cancer Organizations have already clearly stated.
  • A critical element, covered in the article, is the importance of taking account of the patient’s age, life expectancy, family history, race/ethnicity, and other personal health factors in making the decision whether testing for prostate cancer is appropriate or not.
  • The article does not discuss, at all, the potential merits of  “baseline” PSA testing (at any specific age).
  • The journal’s accompanying editorial uses some “loaded” language in making the correct recommendation that regular, mass, population-based screening is not currently justified based on the available evidence. That “loaded” language is centered around the use of the terms “over-diagnosis” and “over-treatment.”
  • There is excellent evidence today that “mass, population-based screening” using mammograms to look for breast cancer is no more justified that prostate cancer screening, on any good statistical basis. Some 2,970 women must be screened once to find 27 cancers and save one life (in women aged between 40 and 65 years of age). The editorial repeats the finding of the European trial that it would be necessary to screen 1,410 men and find an additional 48 cancers to prevent one prostate cancer-specific death.
  • There are simple answers to the issue of “over-reaction” (to screening findings from doctors and patients), and they start with greater honesty — among the clinical community and among the survivor community — about what we really do and don’t know.
  • Over the past 30 years, prostate cancer deaths have dropped 20% in the US, but…”We still can’t tell [which patients are at real risk] beforehand, and so fear and  ‘standard practice’  tell us that we should proceed with treatment ‘to be on the safe side’. We need to do better. And it doesn’t help to demonize the problem with terms like ‘over-diagnosis’ and ‘over-treatment’.”
  • In all truth, we do not have good enough information to allow us to know the best thing to do for the vast majority of men who are at only a statistical (as opposed to a clinically evident) risk for prostate cancer.

It’s to be hoped someone draws the Health Select Committee‘s attention to this latest development in the debate, which has rumbled along since late March, when the results of the long-awaited studies were published in the New England Journal of Medicine – and failed to resolve anything.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »