This week in Melbourne the prostate cancer world conference was held.
The consensus statement this produced/publicised is linked below.
I think we can all agree the PSA cat is out of the bag and has had kittens. There is no going back to Pre-PSA testing but the harms of testing/treatment are very real. What follows are a few thoughts on the statements, responses and few interesting links. Some thoughts from GP peer review.
Consensus Statement 1: For men aged 50–69, level 1 evidence demonstrates that PSA testing reduces prostate cancer-specific mortality and the incidence of metastatic prostate cancer.
This statement is really a push back against the US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation. The evidence base is mixed but that screen reduces the mortality and risk of metastases at diagnosis is fairly clear . What is unclear is how much harm this screening and treatment causes. Interestingly within the statements there is no mention of harms which leads to Statement 2.
Consensus Statement 2: Prostate cancer diagnosis must be uncoupled from prostate cancer intervention.
This is an attempt to reduce the harms that over diagnosis and treatment cause currently. The GPs at peer review thought this aspirational statement was excellent but still remained cynical about how much this was currently occurring.
The reality that PSA testing drives a large portion of private urology work/referrals does make some uncomfortable.
I would point you in the direction of Dr Rajiv Singal who wrote an excellent piece on this in June. (@DrRKSingal)
“In my view PSA itself is a blood test. It is harmless. It is the treatment machinery that it often initiates that potentially gives it a bite and needs careful reflection.”
Consensus Statement 3: PSA testing should not be considered on its own, but rather as part of a multivariable approach to early prostate cancer detection.
There are currently multiple risk assessment tools but little consensus around their use. This also reflects the benefit of DRE in addition to PSA testing.
Consensus Statement 4: Baseline PSA testing for men in their 40s is useful for predicting the future risk of prostate cancer.
I understand the reasons for this statement but the application of it which I have seen discussed confuses me. If someone is very low risk for prostate Ca in their 40s and make up less than 10% of prostate cancer diagnoses when followed up why would you continue to screen them in 5-7 years or again at all?
Consensus Statement 5: Older men in good health with over ten year life expectancy should not be denied PSA testing on the basis of their age.
I found this interestingly nonspecific which I guess is the point. The risks of overdiagosis do need to be stressed more than with younger patients. Also the benefit is unclear as patients age beyond 70.
“Dr. Patrick Walsh, the noted Johns Hopkins urologist and forceful advocate for prostate cancer screening, famously (and humorously) said that he would not do a PSA test on a man older than 75 unless he was brought to the office by both his parents.”
The media uptake of the consensus statement has been pretty impressive. All the major networks picking up the story and print media have also followed suit. Unfortunately the stories have been one sided and this may be a “necessary evil” but the reality is this document will be seen as the prostate cancer experts giving their opinion on screening even if that is not the stated intention.
“ONE of the world’s greatest medical debates has come to an end with experts agreeing that men should start testing for prostate cancer in their 40s.”
You tube video of the media response:
From some of the comments from the BJUI website:
Associate Professor Ian Haines clearly not convinced of the merits of the document:
“This appears to be a pointless, self-serving, unbalanced, unhelpful piece of ‘propaganda’ by a self-selected group of like-minded urologists with huge financial conflicts of interest. It seems no more useful than a group of 10 pig-farmers telling us that we should eat more bacon.”
I am comforted by the comments of Mike Leveridge
“We have doubtless all had patients developing cynical approaches to PSA testing based on what they have seem and read recently, and it is nice to see this side of the debate register some air time (one caveat might be the promulgation of sensational headlines: The Australian: “Prostate experts end PSA test confusion”; I think Bloomberg’s “Prostate Test Warrants Rational Use” is much more becoming of the discipline, but I suppose we can indulge some rabble-rousing if it draws attention to the message).”
A final thought will be left to Minh le Cong who left a comment which I think reflects the thoughts of myself and the other GPs at my peer review:
“Like other commenters, I don’t totally agree with some of the claims in the statement. However the spirit of the statement is on moving forward and changing our strategic thinking on prostate cancer/health. We should all be supporting that spirit.”