- Unbeliebable: White House turns Bieber petition response into immigration screed
- Obama signs law denying Iran ambassador’s visa, but says law is ‘advisory’
- Mich. judge to laughing convicted killer: ‘I hope you die in prison’
- Man charged in Kansas City-area highway shootings
- Keystone XL pipeline still on hold after State Dept. decision
- Fla. man charged with killing 16-month-old son to play Xbox undisturbed
- Drones from the deep: Pentagon develops ocean-floor attack robots
- Michigan mayor slaps back atheists’ try to erect ‘reason station’ at city hall
- PHILLIPS: Where is the conservative establishment?
- 7.5-magnitude earthquake shakes southern Mexico
Final advice: Panel against routine prostate test
To evaluate whether routine screening saves lives, the task force analyzed previous research, focusing in particular on two huge studies in the U.S. and Europe. The panel’s conclusion:
_Without screening, about 5 in every 1,000 men die of prostate cancer over 10 years. The European study found PSA testing might prevent one of those deaths, while the U.S. study found no difference.
_Of every 1,000 men screened, two will have a heart attack or stroke from resulting cancer treatment, and 30 to 40 will experience treatment-caused impotence or incontinence.
_Of every 3,000 men screened, one will die from complications of surgery.
Both the U.S. and European studies have flaws, and task force critics argue over which are most believable. And while U.S. death rates from prostate cancer have dropped over 20 years, the cancer society’s Brawley says the drop began before PSA testing became widespread. Moreover, the risk of death is the same in Europe and the U.S. even though many more American men are screened, diagnosed and treated, he said.
“We need to do a better job of using PSA wisely,” said Dr. Scott Eggener, a University of Chicago prostate cancer specialist who was disappointed the task force went so far. “Most people would agree that a well-informed, young, healthy patient should have the opportunity to talk about it with their physician.”
But he’s studying a way beyond the screen-or-not controversy: Having men with small, low-risk tumors postpone treatment in favor of “active surveillance,” keeping close watch on their tumors and treating only if they grow. More than 100,000 men a year are candidates, concluded a recent meeting at the National Institutes of Health.
That approach could “maximize the benefits of screening,” Eggener said.
Task force information: http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/recommendations.htm
Journal’s patient summary: http://bit.ly/LbhSxH
TWT Video Picks
Women losing coverage under Obamacare, too
- Scalia to students on high taxes: At a certain point, 'perhaps you should revolt'
- Former Ranger breaks silence on Pat Tillman death: I may have killed him
- Special Forces' suicide rates hit record levels casualties of 'hard combat'
- Feds approve powdered alcohol; 'Palcohol' available later this year
- EDITORIAL: Mark Warner running scared?
- Army goes to war with National Guard, seizes Apache attack helicopters
- EDITORIAL: More Lerner smoking-gun emails at IRS
- U.S. Navy to turn seawater into jet fuel
- Harry Reid blasts Bundy ranch supporters as 'domestic terrorists'
- 'Deport Bieber' petition draws no comment from White House
Top 10 handguns in the U.S.