Letters to the Editor
Interpreting the Statistics on Potential Benefits of Prostate Cancer Screening
Am Fam Physician. 2017 Apr 1;95(7):412a-413.
Original Article: Top 20 Research Studies of 2015 for Primary Care Physicians
Issue Date: May 1, 2016
See additional reader comments at: https://www.aafp.org/afp/2016/0501/p756.html
to the editor: I was disturbed by the conclusions made in this article concerning prostate cancer screening. The Lancet study1 cited was chosen as one of the 251 studies that “had the potential to change practice if valid,” and as one of the top 20 studies “judged to have the greatest clinical relevance for family physicians.”
Let's suppose that the data from this study are valid. The clinical question posed is, “Are men who are invited to receive systematic prostate cancer screening better off than men who receive routine care?” The bottom-line answer provided is that “One would have to screen approximately 800 men to prevent one from dying of prostate cancer.” I do not believe that this supports the authors' conclusion that “prostate cancer screening provides a very small benefit, which is outweighed by significant potential harms of screening and associated follow-up treatment.”
This conclusion will no doubt impact the decision making of many practicing physicians, but there is a danger of impersonalization inherent in reaching conclusions based solely on statistical data.
For another perspective, imagine sitting in a crowded football stadium with 100,000 men in the stands who have all been screened for prostate cancer. At halftime, all men whose lives were saved in the past 12 months because of prostate cancer screening are invited to come onto the field. According to the statistics derived from The Lancet study, there are now 125 men (100,000/800) enjoying a football game who would have been dead without screening. How many of the other men in the crowd would conclude that screening is only of little benefit and be inclined to forgo future screening for themselves? I hope family physicians reject practice-changing conclusions based only on “valid data” that ignore the value of individual lives lost because of nifty statistical analysis.
Author disclosure: No relevant financial affiliations.
1. Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al.; ERSPC Investigators. Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow-up. Lancet. 2014;384(9959):2027–2035.
in reply: First, it is important to point out that we did not choose the top 20 research studies for our report; they were selected by thousands of members of the Canadian Medical Association who vote on the impact that each study has on their practice.
Second, Dr. Jones focuses entirely on the potential benefits of prostate cancer screening at the population level and disregards the harms. This is inappropriate, because when we are beginning with a population of asymptomatic men, it is particularly important that the process of screening, biopsy, and treatment does not do more harm than good. Unfortunately, the potential harms of screening for prostate cancer are well established. Based on data summarized by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care,1 those 125 men would be joined on the field by more than 10,000 men who undergo treatment for prostate cancer, of whom about one-third never would have experienced symptoms or illness from the disease. Of those men, approximately 1,700 will experience urinary incontinence, 2,800 will experience long-term erectile dysfunction, and 40 to 50 will die from complications of prostate cancer treatment. These harms may be partially mitigated if more men opt for active surveillance or watchful waiting, although it is unclear to what extent.
Finally, we are not aware of any organization that recommends population screening for prostate cancer in all men in a certain age range. The American Urological Association2 and the American College of Physicians3 recommend that physicians discuss the potential benefits and harms of screening in men 55 to 69 years of age, but they do not recommend screening for all men in that age range. The Canadian Task Force1 and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force4 recommend against screening for prostate cancer.
Author disclosure: Dr. Grad has no relevant financial affiliations. Dr. Ebell is cofounder and editor-in-chief of Essential Evidence Plus, published by Wiley-Blackwell, Inc.
editor's note: Dr. Ebell was a member of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force from 2012 to 2015. The above communication represents his personal views and not those of the Task Force. Dr. Grad is currently a member of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care.
REFERENCESshow all references
1. Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. Prostate cancer—harms and benefits. http://canadiantaskforce.ca/guidelines/published-guidelines/prostate-cancer/. Accessed December 2, 2016....
2. Carter HB, Albertsen PC, Barry MJ, et al.; American Urological Association. Early detection of prostate cancer: AUA guideline. April 2013. https://www.auanet.org/common/pdf/education/clinical-guidance/Prostate-Cancer-Detection.pdf. Accessed November 22, 2016.
3. Qaseem A, Barry MJ, Denberg TD, Owens DK, Shekelle P. Screening for prostate cancer: a guidance statement from the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(10):761–769.
4. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Prostate cancer: screening. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/RecommendationStatementFinal/prostate-cancer-screening. Accessed December 2, 2016.
Send letters to firstname.lastname@example.org, or 11400 Tomahawk Creek Pkwy., Leawood, KS 66211-2680. Include your complete address, e-mail address, and telephone number. Letters should be fewer than 400 words and limited to six references, one table or figure, and three authors.
Letters submitted for publication in AFP must not be submitted to any other publication. Possible conflicts of interest must be disclosed at time of submission. Submission of a letter will be construed as granting the AAFP permission to publish the letter in any of its publications in any form. The editors may edit letters to meet style and space requirements.
This series is coordinated by Kenny Lin, MD, MPH, Associate Deputy Editor for AFP Online.
Copyright © 2017 by the American Academy of Family Physicians.
This content is owned by the AAFP. A person viewing it online may make one printout of the material and may use that printout only for his or her personal, non-commercial reference. This material may not otherwise be downloaded, copied, printed, stored, transmitted or reproduced in any medium, whether now known or later invented, except as authorized in writing by the AAFP. Contact email@example.com for copyright questions and/or permission requests.
Want to use this article elsewhere? Get Permissions