The ABCs and Ds of whether to get prostate cancer screening
It can be hard for physicians to follow current thinking of experts on medical care. It must be exponentially harder for the public to make sense of it. Recently, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force changed its recommendation on prostate cancer screening from aD( that is, don’t do it) to aC( discuss it with your doctor ).
Although there seemed to be a lot of coverage of this announcement, and a fair amount of excitement, there are two things men should know. First, it’ s a good thing that recommendations change over time; second, this change isn’ t as big a deal as you might think.
The task force is made up of volunteers who are experts in primary care and preventive medicine. They are charged with evaluating the benefits and harms of preventive services( like prostate cancer screenings) to determine whether they shouldbewidelyperformed.An“A” recommendation from the panel can be interpreted as an endorsement that everyone get a service because there’ s a high certainty of a substantial benefit. A “B” recommendation is similar, but means that there’ s only a high certainty of a moderate net benefit.
A“D” recommendation advises patients not to get a service because there’ s a moderate certainty of no net benefits, or because the harms from a service outweigh the benefits.
Five years ago, the task force gave prostate cancer screening aD recommendationbecause there are real harms from over-diagnosis of the disease. Over diagnosis leads to unnecessary treatments, and a newly discovered cancer could lead to no symptoms or harm over the patient’ s lifetime. The treatments for prostate cancer, including radiation and prostate ct omy,h ave high levels of adverse events. About 75 percent of all the men treated will have impotence, incontinence or both. Further, at the time of the 2012 statement, there appeared to be little evidence that screening with a prostatespecific antigen blood test( P SA) reduced prostate cancer mortality. With no clear benefit, and significant harms, aD recommendation seemed appropriate. Many disagreed. They argued that there were benefits to screening, and that those would be shown through better research. They were, to some extent, correct. In 2014, researchers for the largest randomized controlled trial to date published an update of an earlier study, and it showed that offering men screening reduced their relative risk of dying of prostate cancer over 13 years by 21 percent. Another study published in late 2012 showed that offering screening reduced the relative risk of meta static disease by 30 percent. This meant that it was no longer true that there was no net benefits for screening, and a “D” no longer applied. Therefore, the task force altered its recommendation to a“C ,” which means there’ s moderate certainty that the overall benefit is small. That signals to patients and physicians that they should make an individual decision.
It’ s important to note that these changes apply only to men 55 to 69. For men 70 and older, the harms outweigh the benefits, and the screening recommendation remains a“D .”
I’m sure the nuances of A, B, Can dD recommendations can be confusing to the public. They can also make it seem as if experts are constantly changing their minds. But this is how we want our expert store act: When new evidence is found, it should be added to older evidence to change our thinking when appropriate.
On the other hand, caution is still warranted when thinking about whether am an should be screened for prostate cancer. Although there is now evidence of a benefit, and its relative importance seems impressive, its absolute effects are not as persuasive.
The goal of healthcare, as always, should be to maximize the benefits of care while minimizing the harms. With this most recent recommendation, thepreventive services task force recognizes that P SA screening now has more evidence to support its upside. There’ s still a large down side, though, and the ways in which we respond to positive screens should try to minimize interventions.