Prostate Testing's Dark Side

more scare tactics.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/12/prostate-test-harm-men_n_1007523.html

I wish I knew how to contact Lichtenfeld.  I'd really like to ask him if he personally gets regular PSA tests, or if he puts his money where his mouth is and does without them.  I'll bet I know the answer.

This same SCARE article has just appeared from several different authors. It is on line and on tv and in publications. It is inaccurate and full of half truths and misinformation.

 This appears to be a well orchestrated attack on psa testing.  The front man seems to be the America Cancer Society, this time led by Dr Lichtenfeld.  The ACS should be shut down.  They raise millions of dollars each year and spend over 80% on executive salaries,operations and fund raising.  Research and treatment gets almost nothing.  When will people learn that they are just a big flim flam, take the money and run organization.

It seems once again that the ACS is taking it's orders from the insurance industry.

http://www.zimbio.com/Hormone+Replacement+Therapy+(HRT)/articles/B8EG1bU4Ah5/BioIdentical+Hormones+Trashed+Marilynn+Marchione

Here is an article I found about the author.

lifeguyd, i agree completely with you on the acs

I remember when the "Task Force" tried to sell the breast cancer issue of not needing a mammogram until 50. They said it caused unnecessary radiation exposure to those under 50. I found that they were only trying to use that as a marketing scare tactic. I guess this is no different.

exactly, it's just a blood test. One that at the very least will create a baseline.

That's what is so annoying about this recommendation not to test and about the AS crowd argument. They both discount the ability and right of the patient to make his decision.

Both use scare tactics about possible side effects and essentially portray the patient as ignorant in his choice.

We've all been through this choice and we all gave it serious thought and were all warned abut the possible side effects.

What this recommendation, or the AS crowd always fail to mention is all the success stories surrounding surgery and radiation. And there are a ton of them.

When I look at the motives for this recommendation I see only money. Particularly the money the health insurance industry thinks they are losing. When i see the recruitment and/or recommendations from the AS crowd (not the common sense ones for older men) I absolutely do not see any genuine concern for other men and the quality of life issues they "might" go through.

Post Edited (davidg) : 10/13/2011 12:16:38 AM (GMT-6)

It is ridiculous. Active Surveillance means just that, being active, it does not mean ignoring the risks and never going near a uro again. At present the only way to be active in monitoring your risk of PCa is to keep testing your PSA. (Having a DRE once a year is hardly going to be adequate if the PCa is developing on the side of the prostate where a finger can't feel. And by the time a DRE can feel a lump it has to be a pretty advanced size anyway and has often broken through as with my brother-in-law.)

If you abandon something on the basis of the complications that may occur as a result of treatment, then I guess the same doctors would advise women not to do pregnancy tests as pregnancy and childbirth have far more complications. Oh and don't bother with any dental checks either after all a dentist broke my mother's jaw once when pulling out a molar and I had to have loads of stitches once when the drill slipped and hit one of the big veins under my tongue. And if you didn't do eye tests you wouldn't have all the expense of buying spectacles or the risk that you might cut yourself if you broke your spectacles.
If you didn't test for anything you'd never find anything and not have to treat anything.

Nobody wants the guys who are not at risk to have unnecessary treatment and/or the side effects, but nobody should want the guys who are indeed at risk not to be treated. Slight over teratment is the lesser of two evils here.
Seems to me like the choice boils down to a risk of side effects for one group or a risk of death for another. So to improve that situation I reckon the call should be to improve the testing and thus improve the efficacity of the screening, not to abandon the screening.


Alf

A friend of mine in Canada refers to us as "The Excited States Of America"..I have to agree with him...

very good post, alf, well said. !!!

Jazzman1 said...
I hate being the contrarian, but I can see both sides of this debate. Yes, testing saves lives. However, it's also true that unduly aggressive treatment results in incontinence and ED, which is nothing to take lightly.

In my view, the third paragraph from the bottom captured the crux of the issue:

The need to find a better screening tool is the real message from the task force, said Dr. Christopher Logothetis, prostate cancer research chief at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. It may even be that there are better ways to use the PSA – employing it as a baseline test and tracking its rise over time – that might prove better than annual testing.


Until we have that better screening tool, men will find themselves rolling the dice no matter what they choose.

 

 

You are not a contrarian, and what you say makes sense.  Most of us here understand all sides of this discussion.  I think that the real problem is that a major statement like this from a well thought of government task force further confuses the "less well informed".  Those who are on the fence or in denial will jump on this statement to  decline further medical help.  That will, in many cases, increase their chance of death at an earlier age. I don't think that is right.