HealingWell
Search Close Search
☰

Consumer Rports tackles cancer screening tests

Support Forums
>
Prostate Cancer
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply
❬ ❬ Previous Thread |Next Thread ❭ ❭
Posted 1/31/2013 6:53 PM (GMT 0)
Consumer Reports should stick to rating toasters and not Cancer Screening. Let alone advising us to not get screened!! Amazing giving medical advice on cancer testing without knowing the individual patient history, risks, and genetic risk factors of a disease.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/consumer-reports-tackles-cancer-screening-tests/story?id=18359910
Posted 1/31/2013 10:20 PM (GMT 0)
Agreed. I was shocked to get this CR issue today and see what they had to say about PSA testing. I know what the studies purport to prove, but I still can't relate that to my personal experience. I was 65, PSA 12.2, bx +6 of 12 cores, G7, which my post-RALP pathology confirmed. The only reason I was tested was because it was routine on joining Kaiser Medicare Plus. If I had learned from CR that it was unnecessary--no, make that damaging--to get this test, of course I would have said no if asked. I am in great shape, have longevity genes in the family, and expect to live with good health into my 90s. Would my "cancer" (I guess we're not supposed to use that word any more) have waited that long to advance to the point of danger? From everything I have learned, no way, not even close. Should I have ever done anything at all about it, starting with the PSA test? From everything I'm learning now, no way. They can't both be true. So which is it? Am I the one in 1,000 who actually benefited from a PSA test? That's impossible. I'm all for the changing perceptions about overtreatment, which treatments are superior, etc. Why shouldn't we be learning more all the time about how to approach this beast? But I also see as inevitable now a slew of advanced PC guys coming in with symptoms and getting a prognosis of a ghastly 5 to 10 year battle before it finally spreads enough to kill them. Is that really progress?
Posted 1/31/2013 10:35 PM (GMT 0)
just tore up my renewal notice for CR.
Posted 2/1/2013 12:02 AM (GMT 0)
I can speak only from my own experience. If I had not gotten annual PSA tests, my PCa would not have been discovered as early as it was two years ago. The DREs by my GP never revealed any abnormalities which would have triggered a biopsy. As a result of the PSAs, tissue from my prostate was biopsied and two of the seven cores revealed Gleason-7 (4+3) cancer. Subsequent DaVinci surgery found the cancer was contained within the prostate capsule and my chances for a long life without recurrence are pretty good. Without the PSAs, I would have waited much longer, probably years, to discover the cancer and would have been looking at a much more dire situation at that time. Maybe PSAs lead to overtreatment of some men but I do not fall into that category. I would not follow CR's advice in this case.
Posted 2/1/2013 12:33 AM (GMT 0)
I glanced through the article and can only say my reaction was profound disgust. I believe CR is going to be responsible for some men dying.
Posted 2/1/2013 2:14 AM (GMT 0)
I read this too. They may be good at recommending a big screen TV, but I didn't see and MD behind their title. I'm done with them.

Bob
Posted 2/1/2013 2:46 AM (GMT 0)
Beothail, your situation sure reminds me of my own situation. The ONLY thing that led me to having a biopsy was a spike in my PSA readings. Even then, the urologist had to "talk" me into the biopsy, which then diagnosed my PC.

Anyone who says that it is unproductive to do screening for PC is obviously someone blissfully ignorant and someone who has never been personally touched by PC.

Take care,
Chuck

Resident of Highland, Indiana just outside of Chicago, IL.
July 2011 local PSA lab reading 6.41 (from 4.1 in 2009). Mayo Clinic PSA Sept. 2011 was 5.7.
Local urologist DRE revealed significant BPH, but no lumps.
PCa Dx Aug. 2011 at age of 61.
Biopsy revealed adenocarcinoma in 3 of 20 cores (one 5%, two 20%). T2C.
Gleason score 3+3=6.
CT of abdomen, bone scan both negative.
DaVinci prostatectomy 11/1/11 at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN), nerve sparing, age 62.
My surgeon was Dr. Matthew Tollefson, who I highly recommend.
Final pathology shows tumor confined to prostate.
5 lymph nodes, seminal vesicles, extraprostatic soft tissue all negative.
1.0 x 0.6 x 0.6 cm mass involving right posterior inferior,
right posterior apex & left mid posterior prostate.
Right posterior apex margin involved by tumor over a 0.2 cm length, doctor says this is insignificant.
Prostate 98.3 grams, tumor 2 grams. Prostate size 5.0 x 4.7 x 4.5 cm.
Catheter out in 7 days. No incontinence, occasional minor dripping.
Post-op exams 2/13/12, 9/10/12, PSA <0.1.
Semi-erections now happening 14 months post-op & slowly getting a bit stronger.
Posted 2/1/2013 4:00 AM (GMT 0)
Why blame Consumer Reports?  All they're doing is surveying the literature, looking at the Preventive Task Force, AMA and other recommendations, and saying the same thing--PSA screening isn't medically indicated.  We may disagree, but we're in a minority.  I've seen the same recommendations from monthly health newsletters I get from leading medical centers in the U.S. (Mayo, Mr. Sinai, Duke, UCLA).  
Posted 2/1/2013 4:19 AM (GMT 0)
Did anyone actually read the article...? Or just the headline...?

Did you catch the part where Dr. John Santa, director of the Consumer Reports Health Ratings Center said that he "doesn’t suggest that men avoid prostate tests altogether....Prostate screening can save some lives."

However, “We found worrisome examples of screenings at athletic stores, at athletic events, mobile vans, mammogram parties. Folks should not be making decisions about cancer screening tests in settings like that."

Same message as AUA, ASTRO, ACS, and just about every other men's advocacy group in the last couple years...

Post Edited (Casey59) : 1/31/2013 9:30:38 PM (GMT-7)

Posted 2/1/2013 4:33 AM (GMT 0)
I have it right here, Casey. On the page that everyone goes right to, the ratings, here's what it says:

THREE TESTS TO GET--AND EIGHT TO AVOID:

AVOID THESE SCREENINGS: PROSTATE CANCER

The ratings: for men 50 to 74, very unlikely the benefit outweighs the harm
for men of all other ages, completely unlikely the benefit outweighs the harm

How this could be perceived by the reader in any other way than DON'T GET A PSA TEST is nonsensical.
Posted 2/1/2013 1:27 PM (GMT 0)
I read it and was disturbed - agree with many here, but particularly Phenom. Anecdotally on here there are so many that disprove thir recommendations. So many who, if they hadn't been tested early, would not be here today.
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply