0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Editor's Note |

Use of Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing Is in the Eye of the Beholder

David S. Aaronson, MD; Rita F. Redberg, MD, MSc
JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(4):547-548. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.8104.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Extract

The use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for prostate cancer is controversial. Various organizations have released conflicting messages regarding the use of the PSA screening test. In 2012, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended against routine PSA screening, citing a lack of evidence regarding its benefits and known harms from prostate biopsy and overtreatment of indolent prostate cancer.1

Topics

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview

Figures

Tables

References

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment
The PSA: tossing out the baby with the bathwater
Posted on April 5, 2016
Stephen B. Strum, MD, FACP
Private Practice of Medical Oncology
Conflict of Interest: None Declared
I am a medical oncologist that decided to subspecialize in prostate cancer (PC) in 1983. My experience with this disease spans 33 years and thousands of patients with PC, including the pre-PSA and PSA eras. Initially, the men I evaluated almost always had far advanced disease, with bone and/or nodal metastases and often lung, liver and even CNS spread. This became a rarity with routine PSA testing and the stage migration of PC shifted dramatically away from bulky disease (T3,T4) to PSA only related disease, even with a normal digital rectal exam (T1c).

Now, because physicians irrationally subjected men with low volume disease to ablative therapies associated with significant morbidity & healthcare costs, we have thrown out the most important biologic marker for the most common malignancy in men: the PSA. We did not look at the opportunities that such an early diagnosis afforded us:
1. Changing diet, lifestyle, & other epigenetic factors to turn PC in low volume disease into a chronic condition which has no effect on mortality or morbidity.
2. Use the diagnosis of PC as a red flag insofar as PC-related illnesses e.g. osteoporosis, dyslipidemias, pro-inflammatory states, cardiovascular disease, lower urinary tract symptoms, etc.
3. Use the diagnosis of PC as a risk factor for other related cancers in the patient and in siblings, & children such as PC, breast cancer, colorectal cancer.

Instead of educating patients and physicians on how to assess tumor volume and extent, and the ramifications of a diagnosis of PC, we simply tossed out the \"baby\" (PSA) & essentially equated this crucial biomarker as something easily disposable (the bathwater).
PSA screening for prostate cancer has never been properly evaluated
Posted on April 12, 2016
David L. Keller, MD, FACP
independent
Conflict of Interest: None Declared
The two randomized trials of PSA screening upon which the USPSTF based their D recommendation were ERSPC and PLCO. PLCO suffered from such high rates of statistical contamination (including off-protocol and pre-protocol screening of control subjects) that its negative result is not considered a valid assessment of PSA screening. [1]

ERSPC reported a reduction in the prostate cancer mortality rate for screened men of 27% at 13 years by per-protocol analysis [2], versus a 21% reduction by intention-to-treat analysis. There is a 6% discrepancy between these mortality reduction estimates because the latter counts men as having been screened based only on their initial randomization, even if they never had a single PSA test. Many consider the former figure a more realistic estimate for patients who actually get screened as directed.

The high false-positive rate of PSA screening led to many unnecessary negative biopsies in the randomized trials. In clinical practice, the common-sense response to a high PSA is to repeat the test a week later for confirmation, because there are many benign causes of transient PSA elevation. If the repeated PSA is normal, the patient can be spared a biopsy. This approach has been demonstrated to reduce the harms of PSA screening compared with reflex biopsy based on a single elevated PSA level, as practiced in the randomized trials. [3]

PSA velocity was not considered in the biopsy decision. For example, in centers using a biopsy threshold PSA of 3, a man whose PSA rose from 2.9 to 3.1 (a 6% increase) was biopsied, but a man whose PSA rose from 0.5 to 2.5 (a 400% increase) was not biopsied. A rapidly rising PSA is more likely to signal an aggressive prostate cancer than a higher but essentially stable PSA.

Most subjects were screened with a PSA test about every 4 years in ERSPC, an interval long enough to allow the most aggressive tumors to metastasize before being detected. In clinical practice, annual PSA measurements can establish a baseline PSA range, allow for calculation of PSA velocity, and perhaps permit detection of worrisome increases quickly enough to intervene before metastasis occurs. Additional information itself cannot harm the patient, only its misuse can.

PSA screening has been associated with a 40% decrease in mortality from prostate cancer [4], which no other intervention or population trend can explain. Given the discordance between the large benefit associated with PSA screening observed in populations, versus the smaller or absent benefit seen in demonstrably flawed controlled studies, it would be foolish to abandon the one measure (PSA screening) most likely to have caused all or most of the decrease in prostate cancer mortality. After all, we advise against smoking based on observational data, in the complete absence of randomized trial data.

It was folly for the USPSTF to issue their anti-PSA dictum without a single urologist on their panel. As the ban on PSA testing is enforced, conservative models predict that discontinuing PSA screening for all men may generate many avoidable cancer deaths. Continuing PSA screening for men aged <70 years could prevent greater than one-half of these avoidable cancer deaths while dramatically reducing over-diagnosis compared with continued PSA screening for all ages. [5] If these models are correct, USPSTF will not be able to undo the harms done by their recommendation against PSA screening.

Harms associated with prostate cancer treatments, such as erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence, have been steadily reduced by improvements in conformal radiation, brachytherapy, robotic surgery, imaging and watchful waiting. Men should be given a choice whether to have PSA screening. Such a choice requires thorough discussions with patients and more effort by clinicians to carefully track PSA levels over time, with the goal of maintaining or improving the reductions we have achieved in prostate cancer mortality by means of PSA screening.

References

1: Vickers AJ. Does Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening Do More Good Than Harm?: Depends on How You Do It. JAMA Oncol. 2016 Mar 24. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.6276. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 27010733.

2: Schröder FH and ERSPC Investigators. Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of
follow-up. Lancet. 2014 Dec 6;384(9959):2027-35. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60525-0.
Epub 2014 Aug 6. PubMed PMID: 25108889; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4427906.

3: Lavallée LT, Binette A, Witiuk K, Cnossen S, Mallick R, Fergusson DA, Momoli F, Morash C, Cagiannos I, Breau RH. Reducing the Harm of Prostate Cancer Screening: Repeated Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing. Mayo Clin Proc. 2016 Jan;91(1):17-22. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2015.07.030. Epub 2015 Dec 10. PubMed PMID: 26688045.

4: Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M et al: SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2009 (Vintage 2009 Populations), National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD, http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2009_pops09/, based on November 2011 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site, April 2012

5: Gulati R, Tsodikov A, Etzioni R, Hunter-Merrill RA, Gore JL, Mariotto AB, Cooperberg MR. Expected population impacts of discontinued prostate-specific antigen screening. Cancer. 2014 Nov 15;120(22):3519-26. doi: 10.1002/cncr.28932. Epub 2014 Jul 25. PubMed PMID: 25065910; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4221407.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

922 Views
1 Citations
×

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Jobs
brightcove.createExperiences();