Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘mass screening’

PROSTABLOG NZ:  HERE are four key issues the NZ Parliamentary inquiry into the detection and treatment of prostate cancer ought now to be focusing on:

  • Mass screening…or not: Not. The evidence in favour of mass screening of all middle-aged men for prostate cancer is not sufficiently strong in statistical terms to overcome the counter-arguments concerning needless and over-treatment and high likelihood of after effects that will blight quality of life.

But…it’s not strong enough yet. That may change as more studies are done and closer analysis of the large random trials is completed. PSA testing may also improve, or be replaced with something better, a test that defines the actual risk to the patient.

  • Guidelines to GPs must be revised. Currently, GPs are forbidden by the Ministry of Health to routinely offer PSA tests and/or rectal examinations for prostate cancer unless a man asks, or mentions symptoms. Since this can be a symptomless disease (until it’s too late), that is unacceptable. It also presumes that people don’t move around, change doctors, lose track of medical records, or simply have little idea of the implications of dad dying of prostate cancer.

If the Ministry of Health wants to avoid high-risk treatment being offered unnecessarily, it needs to move the initial gatekeeping further up the food chain to the specialists.

  • Specialists’ advice needs to be delivered via a more balanced and less costly method. At present, the system works well enough up to the point the pathologist finds signs of cancer in biopsy samples.

But after that, men are left to fend for themselves when it comes to seeking advice from a range of authorities. Some don’t bother, and just go with what the urologist offers. Some can’t afford the $1600 charged by a cancer specialist (oncologist), who may be the most neutral source of advice available.

In the US, the first specialists in the hierarchy, urologists, earned themselves the unenviable moniker of “prostate snatchers” because of the lucrative, medical insurance-backed business of prostate surgery.

How about panels of doctors representing the main treatment options in NZ (surgery, robotic surgery, external beam radiation, brachytherapy, watchful waiting) reviewing the case notes and offering clearly explained options to patients?

  • The public needs to be kept up to date – in layman’s terms – with diagnostic and treatment developments. This is not happening at present. The Ministry and its satellite committees do not have readily available, up-to-date information on the web to help men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer become fully informed before making one of the biggest decisions of their lives.

As wealthy male baby boomers hit the danger zone, enormous amounts of US, European and Asian money are going into researching and developing new drugs, methods of surgery and radiation, diagnostic tools and a bewildering range of related methdologies.

That’s the point – it’s bewildering to the average Kiwi, who must hope his medics are keeping up to date and that the government is adequately funding new treatments.

For example, there is Provenge, a new $100,000+ drug regime that will extend life for a few months, and which is now selling big in the US. When will we see it here?

Communicating the relevance of the overseas prostate industry boom to Kiwis cannot be left solely to the news media here: that’s worse than leaving it to chance and the public relations industry.

Few, if any, journalists in NZ take an abiding interest in prostate cancer (why would they – it’s one of many diseases), and what they do write is sometimes ill-informed, incomplete, inaccurate and out of date.

Finally, the Health Select Committee would be wise to keep its files open on this inquiry. It would be a mistake to shut the doors on a tsunami of prostate cancer information that emerges daily on the web.

Developments are moving so quickly, the committee should require the Ministry of Health to report regularly about what’s happening. The inquiry report, when it finally emerges, should be an interim one that can be updated over time.

The committee is wrestling with questions that are far from settled.

Read Full Post »

PROSTABLOG NZ: In view of renewed NZ debate about PSA testing for prostate cancer, it’s useful to take another look at the updated guidelines published by the American Urological Association in July this year. READ MORE>

The key changes were:

  • a recommendation that all men, whether they have symptoms or not, should get their first PSA test when they turn 40;
  • the final decision about getting tested is an individual one for a man, but made in consultation with his doctor. Mass screening was not recommended.

The Australian and NZ Urological Society have followed suit on these guidelines, announcing an update last month. It has reignited the debate about PSA testing in Australia.

Read Full Post »

OPINION

PROSTABLOG NZ: For now, the debate about whether all men should be screened for prostate cancer is dead.

For now.

For sure, it will re-ignite at some future time, as prognostic tests are improved to the point where doctors can tell when  a prostate tumour discovered in a man needs treatment and when it can be left alone.

Why is the debate dead in the meantime?

Two studies published by the British Medical Journal today back up what most analysts have been saying since the March publication of early results of the two big randomised trials that have been looking at PSA/digital testing.

That mass screening will uncover a lot of cancers that are harmless. Over-treatment will result. It has already.

Even the NZ Prostate Cancer Foundation appears to have conceded this is the case.

At last week’s initial hearings by the Parliamentary inquiry into prostate cancer, Foundation president Barry Young said the organisation was “not dogmatic” about screening.

So where does this leave things?

Should we abandon PSA and rectal exams?

Hardly. They are reliable tools for diagnosis and must still be available to men who ask for them, men whose families have a history of prostate or breast cancer, men with symptoms like reduced urination, unexplained pains, blood in the urine, etc.

Where the debate still needs to continue is in the arena of primary health: how can the confusion that appears to reign among GPs and their patients be clarified.

And does all this rule out a marketing campaign urging men to be checked?

No way. It just needs to be done with a clear message.

Not a lot to ask.

Read Full Post »