Any New Info on PSA Screening?

thanks. on both sets of papers from '09 and '10 blood work i don't see anything. i know this test was done because i remember asking about it each year and was told it was ok. odd how it is not on the paper work from the hospital where the blood was drawn and the report issued. i have another check up in a month i'll bring these papers and ask about it.
 
I find the arguments against testing compelling. I know that my prostate is enlarged, and together with all the biking, I'm guessing that my PSA score would be high, even if there's no cancer.
... but I don't want to head down the road to possible false positives. I'm 57 and have never had a psa test.
My problem is that I don't know whether to trust my doctor or not. Sometimes he says things that seem pretty kooky to me.
Everyone is fine now, but you can see how it influences my thinking, for better or for worse.
Maybe its because of my Post-Medical-Stress-Disorder that I see it as the same thing, just at a different end of the body. If you get a high PSA value, you may have a life-threatening cancer growing inside you. Or maybe not. So you have the biopsy, and wait by the phone for the results. Etc.
A lot of people "win" the PSA lottery, finding an aggressive cancer and getting cured. But stories from lottery winners don't mean that it makes sense to buy a lottery ticket.
Al, we come from different ends of the bias bell curve, but let me share this logic anyway.

First, you need a new doctor. They're everywhere and they keep making more of them. You, one of the most frugal people I've ever met, know how to shop for a quality product. You keep sampling them until you find one who thinks like you and makes you feel better. If you think they're kooky then go find another one. Life is too precarious to waste your time, energy, & emotion dealing with a guy who may or may not have your best interests at heart.

Second, your lottery analogy is flawed. Think of it more as a Russian Roulette analogy. By not having a PSA you do indeed remain blissfully ignorant, but you also limit (or even eliminate) your treatment options.

When my father's tumor was diagnosed, his PSA was part of a "routine" blood test that was ordered for another reason. (It was his first doctor's visit in over a decade.) His PSA was in double digits. The digital rectal exam was an "Uh-oh." The tumor was determined to be a stage IV. The radical prostatectomy was scheduled within a couple of weeks, so he felt he was scrambling to be logistically ready for it-- let alone mentally & emotionally. The word "radical" turned out to affect a couple other functions of that area of your anatomy that you'd prefer to preserve, although these days he's continent again. In other words, life-saving damage control was the priority-- not thoughtful reflection and a conservative treatment plan.

If you get a PSA (free DRE with every blood sample!) and it's 0.5 then you're done. If it's 25 then you certainly don't have to worry about false positives. Even if it's in an ambiguous range, further diagnosis (ultrasound or biopsy) can help-- or you can choose to come back next year to establish a baseline.

Most important of all, you can choose "watchful waiting" or "radiation therapy" instead of "cut this guy open because he's out of time".

When my father was diagnosed then I started the annual routine of PSAs and DREs. After five years of 0.6 or lower I stopped worrying about it, but I'll check it every couple years or so.

I'm just sayin'.

I wonder if Lance Armstrong's doctor said that his testicular-cancer symptoms were "Oh, that's just from all the biking"...
 
I thought it was kooky to say that the symptom (OK, slow start when peeing), was related to biking, because I've been biking for years. But since then I realized that I've recently been trying to get used to a new saddle that is uncomfortable. The last time the symptom appeared was a few hours after a 40 mile bike ride. There's more related to this that I don't care to share.

I still see no problems with the lottery analogy. You're telling me it's flawed because your dad had a PSA and it saved his life. That's like saying one should buy lots of lottery tickets because poverty-stricken Jane Doe spent half her income on lottery tickets, and won 50 million dollars.

Let's say that instead of a PSA test, your doctor goes in the other room and flips a coin. If it's heads he comes back and says that you may have cancer, and that you should have a biopsy. That coin-flip test could save thousands of lives, but that doesn't mean that it's a good test.

From the link in the OP:
Professor Richard Ablin from Arizona University, the person who discovered PSA, wrote an op-ed in the New York Times on March 9, 2010: “The test’s popularity has led to a hugely expensive public health disaster… The test is hardly more effective than a coin toss. As I’ve been trying to make clear for many years now, P.S.A. testing can’t detect prostate cancer and, more important, it can’t distinguish between the two types of prostate cancer — the one that will kill you and the one that won’t. I never dreamed that my discovery four decades ago would lead to such a profit-driven public health disaster. The medical community must confront reality and stop the inappropriate use of PSA.

The problem with "Give me the data, I don't want to be blissfully ignorant." is:

1. The data are unreliable.
2. Saying that you can decide not to get a biopsy or treatment ignores the fact that emotionally, you may not be able to resist.
 
I thought it was kooky to say that the symptom (OK, slow start when peeing), was related to biking, because I've been biking for years..

Your Doctor is not taking your concerns seriously and you would be wise to find another Doctor .
 
The numbers below will tell you how many men out of a thousand will die from prostate cancer in the next 10 years.

Age 50-54 1 in 1,000 for both smokers & ninsmokers
Age 55-59 2 in 1,000 for both smokers & nonsmokers
Age 60-64 3 in 1,000 for both smokers & nonsmokers
Age 65-69 6 in 1,000 for both smokers & nonsmokers
Age 70-74 12 in1,000 for nonsmoker
Age 70-74 10 in 1,000 for smoker
Age 75-79 19 in 1,000 for nonsmoker
Age 75-79 15 in 1,000 for smoker
Appears that an older gent who wishes to avoid death from prostate cancer should take up smoking. Pass me a Camel?

Ha
 
Maybe Rich will chime in. I have had a PSA and digital done every year for 20 years(60YO). For 15 or more years, during my annual a digital would be done, and right after my blood was [-]siphoned[/-] drawn.

Now I am in a new practice and two Physicians have had me wait to to blood work a week or so, after my exam.

Is this new school?
 
Maybe Rich will chime in. I have had a PSA and digital done every year for 20 years(60YO). For 15 or more years, during my annual a digital would be done, and right after my blood was siphoned drawn.

Now I am in a new practice and two Physicians have had me wait to to blood work a week or so, after my exam.

Is this new school?

  • A particularly "robust" digital rectal exam (or long bike rides) can elevate the PSA for a day or two.
  • There is no evidence that screening DRE saves lives despite some very large decent studies, though it is common practice.
  • Of 100 screening PSAs which are roughly in the range of 4 - 10, 3 are right and 7 are false positives. All 10 generally end up referred for biopsy, since you don't know in advance which group you are in (a few just get watched, which begs the question of why were they screened to begin with).
  • Some 80% of men who die of non-prostate causes after age 80 have small, non-invasive prostate cancer at autopsy and never knew it in life.
  • If you choose screening you should logically follow through with biopsy if positive, knowing it will probably be reassuring (70%) and not knowing whether or not treatment improves survival for the other 30%; if you wouldn't have the biopsy even if positive, it is not logical or useful to have the PSA to begin with.
  • It is not "wrong" to implement a PSA screening strategy; rather it reflects your willingness to proceed at high cost with a plan filled with uncertainty. It's like poker -- sometimes you win with a pair of 3's, sometimes you lose with a straight flush but usually the numeric odds play out.
We need a better PSA.
 
I know one thing- it is going to take an act of God to change the way our "preventive medicine" is organized. To me it mostly appears to be a procedure farm.

That link to the rheumatologist who put down testing was interesting. Like, what can it do for him? Find him more people to give aspirin too?

That won't buy many 911s will it?

I hope it will not seem that I think individual doctors don't put patient well being first. I do respect what doctors are trying to do. But the system sure makes it hard to not go along- huge medical school loans, constant pharma pushing, questionably honest journal articles, and just the natural desire to find safety in group consensus.

Ha
 
I agree completely. However, IMHO the good ones make up for a lot of the problem. My primary doc is a marvelous diagnostician, and I really think he cares as much about my well-being as I do. He always gives me plenty of alternatives, and outlines the pros and cons (and costs) of each of them. Occasionally, I will challenge him on something, and tell him what I know based on my own research. Whenever I do that, he is always delighted, since he says most people simply nod and agree when he speaks, then ask him to tell them what to do. He enjoys having an actual conversation about a condition or a treatment.

I've been seeing this doc for the last 18 years, and we have a great relationship. Every referral he has given me has been to an equally good specialist. Maybe I'm just lucky, but I have to think that there are a lot of good docs like this out there; you just have to keep looking until you find one.
 
The problem with "Give me the data, I don't want to be blissfully ignorant." is:

1. The data are unreliable.
2. Saying that you can decide not to get a biopsy or treatment ignores the fact that emotionally, you may not be able to resist.
When I made the point that the analogy was flawed, perhaps I should've avoided trying to come up with a better analogy.

You seem to be choosing to be blissfully ignorant rather than have to confront ambiguous information. I can't live that way.
 
Ok. I have hit the PSA dilemma.
Age: 53

PSA
2008: 2.1
2009: 2.8
2011: 3.5

Going to repeat it in 6-8 weeks I guess. PSA screening is worse than mammography. It's a lot easier to biopsy and/or remove a breast than a prostate.

Rich in Tampa, what puzzles me is that autopsy studies have shown that about 1/3 of men in their 50's that die from other causes have a bona fide "prostate cancer". Yet 1/3 of all men do not die of prostate cancer
 
Rich in Tampa, what puzzles me is that autopsy studies have shown that about 1/3 of men in their 50's that die from other causes have a bona fide "prostate cancer". Yet 1/3 of all men do not die of prostate cancer
Because prostate cancer usually doesn't kill most of its victims. Many die of other causes, or live with prostate cancer for decades. That's part of the dilemma - we treat so many men with serious modalities whose PC would never have bothered them.

Best wishes on whichever path you choose to follow. You will probably do just fine, as many have. The only thing I can add is to be sure you are getting thorough, scientific, objective advice from your docs. Do what feels right for you.
 
Ok. I have hit the PSA dilemma.
Age: 53

PSA
2008: 2.1
2009: 2.8
2011: 3.5
Have you? 3.5 is within the normal range given by my lab (though labs may differ). Even the 5.11 score that I got a few days ago is within the age adjusted range, I gather, for a 69 year old. But we share the problematic consistent rise in scores, and my oncologist thinks I'd better contact my urologist --- maybe get a biopsy.
 
Have you? 3.5 is within the normal range given by my lab (though labs may differ). Even the 5.11 score that I got a few days ago is within the age adjusted range,

You may be right, but the lab used 3.1 as upper normal for some reason.
I should not overreact, but it is deflating to know that this will be an issue now or as I get older. I was hoping to not deal with it until i hit at least 60. This PSA issue for men is really a can of worms. We urgently need a new or better screening test. I don't want to end up with the outcome that Dan Fogleberg had, but I don't want to risk ED and incontinence for 30 years for a prostate cancer that will kill me when I am 85. Therein lies the rub. We don't know which low/intermediate grade cancers need treatment.
But we play with the hand we are dealt.
 
I just read in my morning STL Post Dispatch today, the prostate screening debate continues, as it was titled "Prostate screening doesn't save lives, study finds" . It was referring to the Swedish men study of 9000 men. We already know the particular reasons for and against the procedure, but the article didn't provide a positive reason to do it, just reasons not too. A couple of interesting comments I read were, American Cancer Society does not recommend routine screening for most men, and no government screening program exists in Britain because officials say the PSA test is too unreliable. They got 3 and a half years to clear this up as that's when my doctor wants me to take my first one. I sure hope the eventual answer is don't take it!
 
I just read in my morning STL Post Dispatch today, the prostate screening debate continues, as it was titled "Prostate screening doesn't save lives, study finds" . It was referring to the Swedish men study of 9000 men. We already know the particular reasons for and against the procedure, but the article didn't provide a positive reason to do it, just reasons not too. A couple of interesting comments I read were, American Cancer Society does not recommend routine screening for most men, and no government screening program exists in Britain because officials say the PSA test is too unreliable. They got 3 and a half years to clear this up as that's when my doctor wants me to take my first one. I sure hope the eventual answer is don't take it!


Here's a link to the article:

Screening for Prostate Cancer Doesn't Save Lives (British Medical Journal) - Daniel Fromson - Life - The Atlantic#
 
GregLee said:
Well, why? It's no trouble.

Based on what I read, I don't want to have to deal with getting a number back, that would suggest I have to get treatment from a false positive test that would result in impotence and/or incontinence. It also mentioned psychological distress which doesn't sound fun either. I admit it may be illogical to put your head in the sand on health issues, but unfortunately I am kind of there in this area of health matters.
 
Well, why? It's no trouble.
...until you get a borderline abnormal result, then biopsies (of which 6 out of 7 will be negative). Or you will have early cancer the treatment of which is of unproven benefit, as well as a small incidence of incontinence or impotence.

Then again I suppose you could be one of those rare men whose cancer is cured under this scenario, and which would otherwise have been fatal.

It's not that simple.
 
...until you get a borderline abnormal result, ...
I do, actually, have a borderline abnormal result. I haven't decided what to do about it, if anything. But I'm not in a fit of anxiety over it --- I think it is relevant information I want to know about. Maybe it helps me psychologically to have already had cancer and, probably, recovered from it.
 
psa

What's the sense of having a psa test if it doesn't prolong your life?
My urologist says an increase in psa of .6 or more requires further tests.
I went from 4 to 5.4 in 12 months. Went to urlogist and he wanted to do biopsy. Found better urlogist and he put me on ciprol for two weeks and then another psa test. I am 62 and had one bad experience with biopsy 7 years ago, negative. My new Url does biopsy's while under anisthetic, sounds good to me. But is all this necessary if I die from something else first? :mad:
 
I have had at least two patients (one a physician) die of of sepsis after biopsy, and a dozen more require hospitalization and IV antibiotics.
While this is not news in the medical field, it's been picked up by Business Week:
Prostate Exam Deaths From Superbugs Spur Cancer-Test Inquiry - Businessweek

Apparently the risk of sepsis depends on how that needle is routed through your anatomy and what kind of E. coli it picks up along the way. If you're a world traveler with some interesting critters helping your digestion, then the biopsy question just got a lot more interesting as well. And if you're a doctor who's been around some interesting patient infections, let alone a world-traveling doctor, then it certainly seems to be a concern.

Nam helped uncover the emerging infection risk last year after he trawled through more than 75,000 electronic records of biopsy patients treated in Ontario between 1996 and 2005. When he looked at hospital admissions among patients whose biopsy was negative for cancer, Nam discovered the chance of being hospitalized within a month of the procedure had increased fourfold in less than a decade, reaching 4.1 percent in 2005 from 1 percent in 1996, according to the Journal of Urology report.
When Nam searched for the cause of the hospitalizations, he found 72 percent had an infection-related diagnosis. Nam’s research group is examining individual case files to determine the cause and severity of the infections and which patients had drug-resistant bacteria.

The human brain's heuristics are an interesting problem. "1%" doesn't seem so bad at first glance, but "4.1%" is a combination of both a larger number and a decimal place. Very intimidating.

This certainly doesn't motivate me to run right over to the clinic for a blood test. Or maybe I'm just waiting until the memories fade from my world-class colonoscopy.
 
My PSA was high, forget now what it was, something like 10. I had the biopsy at the urologists office with a local, 12 samples since my prostate was so large. One of the more painful things I've ever done. Loaded up with Levaquin antibiotic. They lost the samples! Did the biopsy again at the hospital as an out patient, with full anesthetic. No problem there until later in the evening. I had two 12 oz cans of soda in me but couldn't pee. Very uncomfortable, though not exactly painful. Had to go to the emergency room and have a nurse insert a catheter, for which I was very grateful. Had the urologist's nurse take out the catheter the next day. The results of the biopsy were negative.

It would be really nice to have a more reliable test!
 
"Ok. I have hit the PSA dilemma.
Age: 53

PSA
2008: 2.1
2009: 2.8
2011: 3.5

Going to repeat it in 6-8 weeks I guess. PSA screening is worse than mammography. It's a lot easier to biopsy and/or remove a breast than a prostate."

MY GP and urologist both told me a spike in the PSA is of more concern than the actual number...which is why I had 2 bopsies over the last 14 months. The first was very uncomfortable (I was mildly sedated so maybe that is why it was not unbearably painful). However, the second was 100% pain free - I was completely out for that one. I forget the details, but besides the anesthesia it was done differently. Maybe you can mention this to your urologist and it will ring a bell with him and go that route for you.
 
Apparently the risk of sepsis depends on how that needle is routed through your anatomy and what kind of E. coli it picks up along the way.
Now that the problem has been noticed, I predict a solution will be found. If the needle is picking up bad s*** in the rectum and transporting it to the prostate, a prep of the sort given before a colonoscopy should be helpful. Or you can imagine a smaller clean needle that is unsheathed after a larger needle has already made its way through the rectum.
 
Back
Top Bottom