Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Pain in the buttFollow

#1 Oct 07 2011 at 7:52 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
12,049 posts
http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/06/health/prostate-screening/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Quote:
Medical group to say men don't need prostate cancer screenings, source says

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the group that told women in their 40s that they don't need mammograms, will soon recommend that men not get screened for prostate cancer, according to a source privy to the task force deliberations.

The task force is set to recommend a "D" rating for prostate specific antigen, or PSA, testing. Such a rating means "there is moderate or high certainty that the service has no net benefit or that the harms outweigh the benefits," according to the group's website. The task force is set to propose this recommendation Tuesday, and then allow for a comment period before issuing a final recommendation.

According to a draft copy of a report scheduled to be released Monday, a review of studies shows screening with the PSA blood test results in "small or no reduction" in prostate cancer deaths.

The report adds that PSA testing is "associated with harms related to subsequent evaluation and treatments."
The PSA test, which is sometimes accompanied by a digital rectal exam, can help determine if a man has prostate cancer. The problem is that many of the cancers that get detected are so small and slow-growing, they'll never be harmful, and doctors have a difficult time discerning the quick, harmful cancers from the slow, harmless ones.

If you test 100 men over age 50, 17 of them will have prostate cancer, and only three of those will have a fast-growing cancer and die of the disease, according to Dr. Kenneth Lin, senior author of the paper due to be released Monday.

If the 14 men with the slow-growing cancers are treated, they could be rendered impotent or incontinent from the treatment; or worse, the treatment could kill them. About one in 500 men who has a radical prostatectomy will die because of complications of the surgery, according to Lin.


Emphasis mine. Unless my math is fuzzy, they're saying that it's better to have those 3% die, than having 14% of men get "radical" treatment that has a .2% chance of being fatal.

I dunno how I'll feel when I hit my 40s and 50s, but I think I'd rather know if I have ANY prostate cancer than not knowing at all. Thoughts?
#2 Oct 07 2011 at 7:58 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Study done by people scared the finger will make them gay.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#3 Oct 07 2011 at 8:04 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
12,049 posts
Also, note that the radical treatment is a prostectomy. Not sure if that would be recommended in all cases; I'd imagine internal medicine would be used long before that. Yeah, overall I think this seems like a pretty terrible recommendation; it's the same group that advocated not using mammograms a few years back. The cynical side of me is thinking "Huh, well if they never get tested, then insurance providers don't need to pay for their treatment... they'll just die. Tests are cheap but the treatment is pricey if they find something and have to treat it... even if it usually wouldn't become dangerous."

Maybe I'm overthinking it?
#4 Oct 07 2011 at 8:17 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
My dad was diagnosed with prostate cancer from psa screening - I think he was maybe 69 at the time. He had no symptoms, no discomfort or anything like that due to 'cancer'. He did have surgery. It was pretty intrusive and he had to wear a pee-bag for awhile. I've never asked about his 'potency'.

After surgery and radiation his PSA went down to normal levels. But he still had to have it tested frequently. During that testing period the number roamed around enough to cause the doctor to put my dad on additional meds. We're taking measurements at the ng/mL here - parts per billion range - that hover just above the detection levels. He just came off those meds a couple months ago. He's 76 now - and still healthy as an ox.

He might have lived with the prostrate cancer without any impact on his life for a very long time - even until he naturally passed from old age. I guess it comes down to how long would it take the cancer to grow/spread to where it's threatening his health versus how long he thinks he might live.

He's got a gf, so if he's not able to perform that's probably quite a hardship for him. I think he's still a stallion though. Smiley: grin

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#5 Oct 07 2011 at 4:18 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
Also, note that the radical treatment is a prostectomy. Not sure if that would be recommended in all cases; I'd imagine internal medicine would be used long before that. Yeah, overall I think this seems like a pretty terrible recommendation; it's the same group that advocated not using mammograms a few years back. The cynical side of me is thinking "Huh, well if they never get tested, then insurance providers don't need to pay for their treatment... they'll just die. Tests are cheap but the treatment is pricey if they find something and have to treat it... even if it usually wouldn't become dangerous."

Maybe I'm overthinking it?


Yup. Just say "Death Panels". Much simpler. Smiley: wink
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#6 Oct 07 2011 at 4:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Elinda wrote:
He's got a gf, so if he's not able to perform that's probably quite a hardship for him. I think he's still a stallion though. Smiley: grin

Ew.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#7 Oct 07 2011 at 5:40 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
Emphasis mine. Unless my math is fuzzy, they're saying that it's better to have those 3% die, than having 14% of men get "radical" treatment that has a .2% chance of being fatal.

I dunno how I'll feel when I hit my 40s and 50s, but I think I'd rather know if I have ANY prostate cancer than not knowing at all. Thoughts?

Your math is right, but I'm not sure why you think it's a bad recommendation.

Some forms of prostate cancer are aggressive, and the majority are not. The test is poor at revealing which form of prostate cancer you have, only that you have some form of the cancer. When people find out they have the cancer, they freak out and attempt a bunch of preventative procedures that have very little chance of preventing death from the aggressive form, but a significant risk of impairment regardless of the form you have.

Edited, Oct 7th 2011 6:41pm by Allegory
#8 Oct 07 2011 at 5:54 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Allegory wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
Emphasis mine. Unless my math is fuzzy, they're saying that it's better to have those 3% die, than having 14% of men get "radical" treatment that has a .2% chance of being fatal.

I dunno how I'll feel when I hit my 40s and 50s, but I think I'd rather know if I have ANY prostate cancer than not knowing at all. Thoughts?

Your math is right, but I'm not sure why you think it's a bad recommendation.

Some forms of prostate cancer are aggressive, and the majority are not. The test is poor at revealing which form of prostate cancer you have, only that you have some form of the cancer. When people find out they have the cancer, they freak out and attempt a bunch of preventative procedures that have very little chance of preventing death from the aggressive form, but a significant risk of impairment regardless of the form you have.


I guess the question is whether recommendations from this group end out being health care policy. If they're just recommendations and the patient is free to get the tests and it doesn't affect whether the tests are paid for, nor payments for procedures the patient may request as a result of the tests, then there's no problem. But if it affects whether some health care coverage will pay for the tests and procedures then it kinda is.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#9 Oct 07 2011 at 6:00 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
gbaji wrote:
If they're just recommendations and the patient is free to get the tests and it doesn't affect whether the tests are paid for, nor payments for procedures the patient may request as a result of the tests, then there's no problem.

Medicare coverage for PSA's is required by law. The PSTF has specifically stated their research is not to be used to determine what should be covered by insurance policies, only to be used for doctors discussing options with their patients.

So I guess that clears up that.
#10 Oct 07 2011 at 6:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Allegory wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If they're just recommendations and the patient is free to get the tests and it doesn't affect whether the tests are paid for, nor payments for procedures the patient may request as a result of the tests, then there's no problem.

Medicare coverage for PSA's is required by law. The PSTF has specifically stated their research is not to be used to determine what should be covered by insurance policies, only to be used for doctors discussing options with their patients.

So I guess that clears up that.


Yup. So long as the law doesn't change and the PSTF's statements about how their research should be used is followed, we're golden. :)
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 283 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (283)