1-1banner
 
medpundit
 

 
Commentary on medical news by a practicing physician.
 

 
Google
  • Epocrates MedSearch Drug Lookup




  • MASTER BLOGS





    "When many cures are offered for a disease, it means the disease is not curable" -Anton Chekhov




    ''Once you tell people there's a cure for something, the more likely they are to pressure doctors to prescribe it.''
    -Robert Ehrlich, drug advertising executive.




    "Opinions are like sphincters, everyone has one." - Chris Rangel



    email: medpundit-at-ameritech.net

    or if that doesn't work try:

    medpundit-at-en.com



    Medpundit RSS


    Quirky Museums and Fun Stuff


    Who is medpundit?


    Tech Central Station Columns



    Book Reviews:
    Read the Review

    Read the Review

    Read the Review

    More Reviews

    Second Hand Book Reviews

    Review


    Medical Blogs

    rangelMD

    DB's Medical Rants

    Family Medicine Notes

    Grunt Doc

    richard[WINTERS]

    code:theWebSocket

    Psychscape

    Code Blog: Tales of a Nurse

    Feet First

    Tales of Hoffman

    The Eyes Have It

    medmusings

    SOAP Notes

    Obels

    Cut-to -Cure

    Black Triangle

    CodeBlueBlog

    Medlogs

    Kevin, M.D

    The Lingual Nerve

    Galen's Log

    EchoJournal

    Shrinkette

    Doctor Mental

    Blogborygmi

    JournalClub

    Finestkind Clinic and Fish Market

    The Examining Room of Dr. Charles

    Chronicles of a Medical Mad House

    .PARALLEL UNIVERSES.

    SoundPractice

    Medgadget
    Health Facts and Fears

    Health Policy Blogs

    The Health Care Blog

    HealthLawProf Blog

    Facts & Fears

    Personal Favorites

    The Glittering Eye

    Day by Day

    BioEdge

    The Business Word Inc.

    Point of Law

    In the Pipeline

    Cronaca

    Tim Blair

    Jane Galt

    The Truth Laid Bear

    Jim Miller

    No Watermelons Allowed

    Winds of Change

    Science Blog

    A Chequer-Board of Night and Days

    Arts & Letters Daily

    Tech Central Station

    Blogcritics

    Overlawyered.com

    Quackwatch

    Junkscience

    The Skeptic's Dictionary



    Recommended Reading

    The Doctor Stories by William Carlos Williams


    Pox Americana: The Great Smallpox Epidemic of 1775-82 by Elizabeth Fenn


    Intoxicated by My Illness by Anatole Broyard


    Raising the Dead by Richard Selzer


    Autobiography of a Face by Lucy Grealy


    The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat by Oliver Sacks


    The Sea and Poison by Shusaku Endo


    A Midwife's Tale by Laurel Thatcher Ulrich




    MEDICAL LINKS

    familydoctor.org

    American Academy of Pediatrics

    General Health Info

    Travel Advice from the CDC

    NIH Medical Library Info

     



    button

    Wednesday, January 11, 2006

    Testing Prostates: The prostate cancer screening test, PSA (prostate specific antigen) is under fire again:

    US researchers found the prostate specific antigen (PSA) test did not improve survival rates.

    The researchers found men screened using the PSA test died from the disease at about the same rate as those who were not checked.

    ...The researchers found that combining the PSA test with a digital examination produced even worse results.


    Now that's interesting, because we always tell people that they should have both a digital exam (done by feeling the prostate with a finger inserted into the rectum) and a PSA to screen for prostate cancer. The abstract doesn't make clear exactly how badly the combined approach faired or why. (The full text needs a subscription, which I don't have.)

    The value of the PSA as a screening test has long been in question. However, it continues to be commonly used because men have come to expect it. Doctors are always told that they need to discuss the pros and cons of the test and all of its uncertainties with patients before performing it, but I've found that one of the most difficult subjects to convey to a patient - even when I've spent the whole visit discussing only that topic. I have yet to meet someone who has completely grasped it. Or maybe I just haven't discovered a good way to convey the message.

    In any case, people who are prevention oriented always end up having it done. Those who are prevention phobic don't. And in the back of my mind, there's the always the question of how the patient or his family will react if we don't do the test, then he ends up with prostate cancer some years down the line. Too often, the response will be - "that doctor told me I didn't need the test. I should have listend to my friends (or the health news) instead." It's a very real concern, as this case illustrates. It's one of those tests that gets ordered more for legal reasons than for medical reasons.
     

    posted by Sydney on 1/11/2006 08:50:00 AM 5 comments

    5 Comments:

    Logically, PSA testing has not been
    shown to reduce morbidity or mortality and therefore should
    NOT be offered routinely as a
    screening test.
    Legally, if you discuss screening
    for prostte CA with a patient, you
    had better do the test, or you
    may get nailed.
    Logic is not of much use in
    avoiding medical liability.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:23 PM  

    I've found that one of the most difficult subjects to convey to a patient - even when I've spent the whole visit discussing only that topic. I have yet to meet someone who has completely grasped it.
    Well, I am a patient and I grasped it. This book seems to explain uncertainties of different screening tests including PSA clearly enough:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0520239768/104-9564289-6812756?v=glance&n=283155
    Are you liable if while ordering the test you'll also recommend the book to the patient or give a handout summarizing pro- and con-. Then if a patient chooses to refuse you'll ask him to sign something saying that you wanted to order the test but he refused it. Would it work?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:03 PM  

    Case-control studies are OK for rare diseases, not for a common disease like prostate cancer. Where's the cohort study?

    I am a pathologist. I see prostate biopsies done for an elevated PSA. About 30% of them contain cancer. Most of these patients will undergo treatment of some sort. I do not understand how this can be useless. It is not enough to spit a number; a logical explanation must be provided.

    By Anonymous EM, at 1:06 PM  

    The logical explanation, em, is the variable natural history of the disease. Early diagnosis does not equal higher rates of cure. You may be treating tumors which might never be clinically significant, as well as those which may already have microscopic metastases. No treatment benefit in either case.

    By Anonymous Steve, MD, at 2:08 PM  

    At autopsy 67% of men over age 80 have prostate cancer. But only a small fraction of that will die of it. The challenge of prostate cancer detection is preventing deaths, but we do not really understand who will die of prostate cancer and who will just be "carriers." Until we can separate out the aggressive from the non-aggressive cancers, or at least stratify risk, we will be shooting in the dark.

    By Anonymous mchebert, at 5:42 PM  

    Post a Comment

    This page is powered by Blogger, the easy way to update your web site.

    Main Page

    Ads

    Home   |   Archives

    Copyright 2006