Now, keep up to date
with daily feeds of newly posted stories
about America's Seniors...click on the box
to the left
Survey says men may
not be adequately involved in decisions
about Prostate Cancer Screening
Newswise — Men largely make decisions about
prostate cancer screening based on
conversations with their clinicians, but
these discussions often do not include
information about the risks of testing in
addition to the benefits, according to a
report in the September 28 issue of Archives
of Internal Medicine, one of the JAMA/Archives
journals.
A second report in the same issue uses
statistical modeling to estimate the
benefits and risks of prostate-specific
antigen (PSA) screening in men of various
ages and risk levels.
The majority of American men older than 50
have been screened with the PSA blood test,
according to background information in one
of the articles.
However, the practice is controversial
because there is no convincing evidence that
screening prevents deaths from the disease,
and treating early-stage cancers detected by
screenings may lead to important
complications.
“Given the uncertain benefit for screening
and known treatment risks, prostate cancer
screening decisions should be guided by
patient preferences,” the authors write.
“Indeed, most professional organizations
recommend that the first step in screening
should be a discussion between health care
providers and patients about the risks and
benefits of early detection and treatment so
that patients can make informed decisions
about whether to be screened.”
Richard M. Hoffman, M.D., M.P.H., of New
Mexico VA Health Care System and University
of New Mexico School of Medicine,
Albuquerque, and colleagues conducted a
telephone survey of 3,010 randomly selected
English-speaking adults age 40 and older in
2006 and 2007.
The sample included 375 men who had either
undergone or discussed PSA testing with
their clinicians in the previous two years.
These men were asked what they knew about
prostate cancer, what their discussions with
clinicians were like and what factors and
sources of information influenced their
screening decisions.
Overall, 69.9 percent of the men had
discussed screening with their clinician
before making a decision, including 14.4
percent who chose not to undergo testing.
Most often, clinicians raised the idea of
screening (64.6 percent), and 73.4 percent
recommended it. Recommendation from a
clinician was the only characteristic of the
discussion associated with testing.
“Although respondents generally endorsed
shared decision-making process and felt
informed, only 69.9 percent actually
discussed screening before making a testing
decision, few subjects [32 percent] reported
having discussed the cons of screening, 45.2
percent said they were not asked for their
preference about PSA testing and performance
on knowledge testing was poor,” with only
47.8 percent of men correctly answering any
of three questions about prostate cancer
risk and screening accuracy, the authors
write.
“Therefore, these discussions—when held—did
not meet criteria for shared decision
making. Our findings suggest that patients
need a greater level of involvement in
screening discussions and to be better
informed about prostate cancer screening
issues.”
In a second study, Kirsten Howard, B.Sc.,
M.App.Sc., M.P.H., M.Health.Econ., Ph.D., of
the University of Sydney, Australia, and
colleagues constructed a statistical model
to provide information for men age 40, 50,
60 and 70 years at low, moderate and high
risk for prostate cancer based on family
history.
Using Australian prostate cancer incidence
rates before PSA screening began in 1989 and
cancer death rates in 2005, along with data
from the European Randomized Study of
Screening for Prostate Cancer and the
Australian Bureau of Statistics, the authors
examined two hypothetical cohorts of men who
either participated in or declined annual
PSA screening.
The model predicts that benefits and harms
of annual PSA screening vary with age and
risk level.
For example, for every 1,000 60-year-old men
at low risk, 53 of those who were screened
yearly would be diagnosed with prostate
cancer and 3.5 would die of the disease
during a 10-year period, compared with 23
diagnoses and 4.4 deaths in unscreened men.
“For 1,000 men screened from 40 to 69 years
of age, there will be 27.9 prostate cancer
deaths and 639.5 deaths overall by age 85
years compared with 29.9 prostate cancer
deaths and 640.4 deaths overall in
unscreened men,” the authors write.
“Higher-risk men have more prostate cancer
deaths averted but also more prostate
cancers diagnosed and related harms.”
In the model, screened men are two to four
times more likely to be diagnosed with
prostate cancer than unscreened men, but
death rates from prostate cancer and from
all causes are not significantly different.
This implies that many men whose cancer is
detected by PSA screening may be undergoing
treatment for clinically insignificant
cancers, the authors note.
“In conclusion, before undergoing PSA
screening, men should be aware of the
possible benefits and harms and of their
chances of these benefits and harms
occurring,” they write.
“Even under optimistic assumptions, the net
mortality benefit is small, even when
prostate cancer deaths are cumulated to 85
years of age.
"These
quantitative estimates can be used to
support the goal of individual informed
choices about PSA screening.”
Editor’s Note: Please see the articles for
additional information, including other
authors, author contributions and
affiliations, financial disclosures, funding
and support, etc.
Editorial: Study Helps
Highlight Difficulties of Shared Decision
Making
Virtually every professional organizations’
PSA screening guidelines urge clinicians to
engage patients in shared decision making
before performing PSA testing, write Steven
H. Woolf, M.D., M.P.H., of Virginia
Commonwealth University, Richmond, and Alex
Krist, M.D., M.P.H., in an accompanying
editorial.
“Definitions of shared decision making vary,
but the term generally refers to the effort
to help patients understand the benefits,
harms and uncertainties of available options
and to apply personal preferences to
determine the best choice.
"Both
parties share information, jointly
participate in decision making and agree on
a course of action that incorporates
personal preferences.”
“Today’s practice environment presents few
incentives or support tools for those
clinicians and patients who prefer a
discussion rather than simply marking a
checkbox for PSA on a laboratory requisition
form,” they continue.
“In the United States, where medical
technologies are often adopted long before
their effectiveness and safety are
confirmed, the difficulties of implementing
shared decision making for prostate cancer
screening will likely recur with other
modalities of care.
"What
is ultimately required is a deeper change in
culture among providers and consumers of
health care to delay dissemination, resist
the assumption that newer is better, wait
for evidence, tolerate observation over
intervention and accept uncertainty.”
Editor’s Note: Please see the article for
additional information, including author
contributions and affiliations, financial
disclosures, funding and support, etc.
Editorial: Information
Can Aid Discussion of PSA Screening
“Data from the National Survey of Medical
Decisions reported in this issue of the
Archives suggest that many patients have not
had an opportunity to discuss the full range
of issues related to the PSA screening
decision,” writes Michael Pignone, M.D.,
M.P.H., of University of North
Carolina–Chapel Hill, in an accompanying
editorial.
“Because of the complexity of factors that
need to be considered in such discussions,
tools have been developed to help guide
providers and patients in considering the
benefits and downsides of screening and in
reaching a value-concordant decision,” he
continues.
“One
type of tool, patient decision aids, has
been shown to increase patient knowledge,
participation and confidence.”
“To inform the development of future
decision aids, Howard and colleagues present
a balance sheet of the consequences of PSA
screening in Australian men from different
age groups and with different levels of
underlying risk,” Dr. Pignone continues.
“The work by Howard and colleagues is an
important step in providing information to
patients and providers to facilitate
discussion about this trade-off.”
Editor’s Note: Dr. Pignone is supported by
an Established Investigator Award from the
National Cancer Institute and by the
Foundation for Informed Medical Decision
Making. Please see the article for
additional information, including author
contributions and affiliations, financial
disclosures, funding and support, etc.
... ..
...
...