counter customizable free hit
Survey says men may not be adequately involved in decisions about Prostate Cancer Screening
 
 


Home
Up
Active Surveillance
Advance Diagnosis
Advantages, Complications
Combo Treatment Works
African-American Men at Risk
Aggrressive Gene
Anxiety and Treatment
Artifical Light Impact
Biochemical Failure
Blood Test Detection
Calcium, Prostate Death
Cancer Free
Cancer Suppression
Choosing Prostate Treatment
Combined Therapies
Combo No Impact
Consider Risks, Benefits
Dietary Role
Dramatic Outcomes
EarlierProstate Screenings
Early Stage Treatment
Family History Impact
Few Radiation Effects
Free Prostate Screening
Gene Fusion Test
Green Tea Benefit
Harmful Radiation Link
Herbal Therapy
Hereditary Markers
High Risk Group
Hops Aid Prostate
Hormonal Speeds Progression
Hormone Therapy Danger
Immune System Role
Improved Recognition
Influences on Prostate Tests
Less is More
Limited Benefit
Lower Cholesterol
Low-Income Victims
Male Sling Procedure
Microwave Treatment Problems
More Effective Treatment
Neglected Treatment Factors
Nerve Growth
New Prostate Publication
New Prostate Test
NFL Star's Prostate Cancer
Non-Invasive Test
No Superior Treatment
No Tests Older Men
Olive Oil Benefit
Other Prostate Problems
Post-Operative Impact
Promegranate Benefit
Prostate Age Limit?
Prostate Biiomarkers
Prostate Blood Marker
Prostate Cancer Counseling
Prostate Cancer Indicators
Prostate Institute
Prostate Decision Aids
Prostate, Dietary Risk
Prostate Genetic Link
Prostate Health Month
Prostate, Heart Attacks
Prostate, Radiation
Prostate Screening
Prostate Seeds
Prostate Vaccine
Prostate Treatments
Prostatitis in Men
Prostate Stem Cells
Prostate Surveillance
Radiation Role
Red Wine Aids Prostate
Reducing Risk
Red Wine Benefit
Religion Impact Screening
Remember Appointments
Robotic Prostate Surgery
Screening for Elderly
Screening Involvement
Season of Diagnosis
Slow Prostate Cancer Spread
Spread to Organs
Statin Beneficial
Statins, Prostate Cancer
Stress Management
Supplement Benefit
Surgery Success
Tests Policy Urged
Therapy Questioned
Unwanted Effect Possible
Urinary Problems to Increase
Vaccine Eases Pain
Vitamin A Stays 'Active'
Walks Cut Bone Loss
Treating Larger Patients
Treatment Outcome
Trust, Early Treatment
Wife's Stress Harmful
Wives Aid Screening
Zinc Aids Prostate
30-Year Valid Tests

Home
Acupuncture Aid
African-American Tests
Age No Barrier
Aging and Cancer
Alcohol Cancer Risk
Alcohol,Smoking Link
Amputation Benefit?
Anemia Drug Dangerous
Armstrong Support
Aspirin Helps
Aspirin,Prostate
Asthma-Cancer Link
Attacking Brain Cancer
Avoid Thin,Fat
Awareness Issues
Black Cancer Surival Lower
Blacks, Cancer
Body Composition
Bogus 'Cures'
Benefit Disputed
Bladder Cancer News
Boston Cancer Suvivors
Brain Cancer News
Breast Cancer
Cancer Related Fatigue
Increase Awareness
Cancer, Aging Treatments
Cancer Case
Cancer Cells
Cancer Deaths Decline
Cancer, Enzyme Link
Cancer, Heart
Cancer Home Detection Kit?
Cancer Link
Cancer Infection?
Cancer Policy
Cancer Prevention Steps
Cancer Rate Decline
Cancer Report
Cancer Risk
Cancer Risk Women
Cancer Spa
Cancer Spread
Cancer Survival
Cancer Survivors
Cancer Tests Debate
Care Disparities
Carolina Cancer Initative
Cartilage No Value
Celebrating Cancer Surival
Cervical Cancer News
Colon Cancer
Difficult Cancer Therapy
Disparities Adressed
Detect Lung Cancer
Earlier Cancer Notification
Elderly CLL Patients
Esophagus Cancer Treatment
Exercise Reduces Risk
Evaluating Cancer Therapies
Eye exams, Cancer
Family Awareness
Family Ties
Fewer Biopsies
Fewer Deaths
Firefighters Bladder Cancer
Gains Threatened
Genetic Cancer Markers
Genetic Testing Link
Gilda's 25th Anniversary
Ginger Fights Cancer
GI Perforations
Gold Nanoparticles Treatment
GOLF Magazine Push
Green Tea Helps
Group Therapy Questioned
Head and Neck Cancer
Immigrant Cancer History
Improving Immunity
Immune Deterrent
Ineffective Drug
Inherited Cancer Risk
Lapatinib  minimal effect
Lack of Attention
Lifestyle Changes Benefit
Liver Cancer Biomarkers
Liver Cancer Fighter
Liver Cancer Pill
Lung Cancer
Lymphoma Survival Rates
Make Informed Choices
Managing Nausea
Marrow Transplant
Measuring Cancer Spread
Men, Bladder Cancer
Minority Awareness
Minority Cancer Awareness
Minority Grants
Minorities, Cancer
Myeloma Treatment
New Detection Method
More Involvement
MRI for Brain Tumors
Neck, Head Cancer
Minority Screenings
New Ginkgo Use
New Treatments
Nurses Halt Chemo
Non-Invasive Detection
Obesity and Cancer
Obesity, Cancer Link
Off-Label Stent Study
Older Survivors
Older Women, Breast Cancer
Oncologists, Patients
One-Step Radiation
Oral Cancer Risk
Oral Chemotherapy Risks
Ovarian Cancer News
Oral Cancer Detection
Ovarian Cancer Awareness
Pain Management Need
Passive Smoke Risk
Patient Meets Donor
Pelvic Fracture Risk
Poverty Link
Preventing Cancer
Preventing Recurrence
Prevention Tips
New Metastatic Treatment
New Sensitive Tests
New Treatment Initiative
Pancreatic Cancer
Physics Fights Cancer
Prevent Radiation Damage
Progress Report: Cancer 2007
Promising Experimental Drug
Prostate Cancer News
Racial Treament Differs
Radiology Explained
Radiation Costs Vary
Radiation Resistance
Rally Cancer Awareness
Relief from Sea Possible
Repairing Cells
Screening Benefit
Screening Importance
Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
Skin Cancer News
Smelling Cancer?
Historic 'Brain Trust'
Smoking Hurts Recovery
Soy Helps
Spicing Up Cancer Fight
Stat3 Protein Link
Stomp Out Cancer
Stopping Metastasis
Stop Stomach Cancer
Stress & Cancer
Stress, Cervical Cancer
Surgery Best Option
Surgery Delay Deadly
Surviviors' Music
Survival Priority
Spouses Impacted
Standup2Cancer
Survivor Transition
Survivor Depression
Take Part in Program
Theismann on Prostate
Tea Helps Skin
Test for Cancer Cure
Throw Light on Cancer
Thyroid Cancer Increase
Tips in Recovery
Toad Venom
Tongue Cancer
Treat Bladder Cancer
Treatment Doubts
Treating Cancer Spread
Treatment Barrier
Treatment Differences
Treatment Risk
Trials Started
Tumor Blocker
Tumors Can't Hide
Unsubstantiated Claims
Urban, Rural Stats
Volume Cancer Surgery
Watchful Waiting
Tumor Suppressor
Wine Cuts Risk
Women's Awareness
Women at Risk
Women, Lung Cancer
Yul Brynner Foundation
Zinc Role
2008 Cancer Awareness

 

 

 



Google
 

 

Web TodaysSeniorsNetwork.com
 

AddThis Feed Button   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.

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

... ..
...
...

 

 

 

 



Home
Up
About Us
America's Seniors WebMall
Aging News
California Report
Caregiving
Community/Workplace
Fitness,Health
Grandparents
Health Care Policy
Hispanic Seniors
Medicare News
Contents/Sitemap
Prescription Drugs
Pharma Suits
Restaurant Reviews
Rural Seniors
Safety & Security
Seniors Commentary
Seniors' Entertainment
Seniors Headlines
Seniors Finances
Seniors' Issues
Seniors Relationships
Seniors Rights
Social Security News
The Virtual Family
Travel News
TSN Radio on Web
Veterans' Tribute
White House Cards
Privacy Policy
Consumer Alert
Pull Plug Heat Costs

 

 

 To Contact Us, Click here
Copyright (C) 1999-2010 TodaysSeniorsNetwork.com