Check out the TB2K CHATROOM, open 24/7               Configuring Your Preferences for OPTIMAL Viewing
  To access our Email server, CLICK HERE

  If you are unfamiliar with the Guidelines for Posting on TB2K please read them.      ** LINKS PAGE **



*** Help Support TB2K ***
via mail, at TB2K Fund, P.O. Box 71, Coupland, TX, 78615
or


HEALTH Downward spiral in healthcare continues: Panel calls for end to routine prostate screening
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Behind Enemy Lines
    Posts
    88,473

    16 Downward spiral in healthcare continues: Panel calls for end to routine prostate screening

    Panel calls for an end to routine prostate screening

    Published May 22, 2012

    | Associated Press

    Healthy men shouldn't get routine prostate cancer screenings, says updated advice from a government panel that found the PSA blood tests do more harm than good.

    Despite strenuous protests from urologists, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is sticking by a contentious proposal it made last fall. A final guideline published Monday says there's little if any evidence that PSA testing saves lives - while too many men suffer impotence, incontinence, heart attacks, occasionally even death from treatment of tiny tumors that never would have killed them.

    The guideline isn't a mandate. The task force stresses that men who want a PSA test still can get one, but only after the doctor explains the uncertainties. That's in part because the panel found PSA testing hasn't been studied adequately in black men and those with prostate cancer in the family, who are at highest risk of the disease.

    The Obama administration said Monday that Medicare will continue to pay for PSA screenings, a simple blood test. Other insurers tend to follow Medicare's lead.

    "This is important information for the public and men to have, and they should talk with their doctors about the risks and benefits of prostate cancer screening and make the decision that's best for them," said Mark Weber, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services.

    The task force advice goes a step further than major health groups including the American Cancer Society, which has long urged that men decide the issue for themselves after being told of PSA's pros and cons. But it's not likely to end an annual ritual for many men 50 and older. After all, the same task force has long urged men over 75 to skip PSA screening, and research suggests almost half of them still get tested.

    The controversy will end only with development of better tests - to finally tell which men's tumors really will threaten their lives, and who will die with prostate cancer rather than from it, said Dr. Virginia Moyer of the Baylor College of Medicine, who heads the task force.

    "We have been told for decades to be terrified of cancer and that the only hope is early detection and treatment," she said. The reality: "You don't need to detect all cancers."

    "We don't want this to be the answer," Moyer added. "We want to screen for the ones that are going to be aggressive, manage those early - and leave everyone else alone."

    In an editorial published with the guideline in Annals of Internal Medicine, some urologists argue the panel underestimated PSA's value and overestimated its harms.

    "What PSA screening offers the men is a substantial opportunity to avoid dying a particularly unpleasant death from prostate cancer," said editorial co-author Dr. William Catalona of Northwestern University, who pioneered the testing.

    He spoke Monday from a meeting of the American Urological Association, where doctors debated the guideline's impact. The urology association advises that men be informed of the potential risks and benefits before screening.

    But Dr. Otis Brawley, the American Cancer Society's chief medical officer, welcomed the task force's recommendation. He hoped it would help deter mass screenings, where men are given free PSAs at shopping malls and sports arenas without being told of the controversy, screenings that Brawley calls big business when health centers profit from the follow-up care.

    "The question is, are we actually curing anybody who needs to be cured right now?" Brawley asked.

    Too much PSA, or prostate-specific antigen, in the blood only sometimes signals prostate cancer is brewing. It also can mean a benign enlarged prostate or an infection. Only a biopsy can tell. Most men will get prostate cancer if they live long enough. Some 240,000 U.S. men a year are diagnosed with it, most with slow-growing tumors that carry a very low risk of morphing into the kind that can kill.

    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.
    Print Close

    URL

    http://www.foxnews.comhttp://www.fox...ate-screening/

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/0...#ixzz1vouoFnh2

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    19,845
    this happened in the UK then was reversed temporally, not sure what the current situation is, PC in action, think it was reversed for a short while then cancelled for PC reasons

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Northeastern PA, along the NY border
    Posts
    5,526
    Just like recommending no mammograms for women, it's a move by the Death Panels to reduce the load on elder care programs by allowing diseases that normally afflict the senior population to no longer be looked for. That way the older population dies off quicker and doesn't use programs like Social Security and Medicare as much.

    Besides, get rid of those who remember the past and you deprive the current generations of the people who could guide them back to America from the times before the current Socialist onslaught of the last decade or two.

    WW
    Obama called the SEALs, they answered the call and Osama Bin Laden died.
    The SEALS called Obama, he refused to accept the call and the SEALS died.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Behind Enemy Lines
    Posts
    88,473
    WW, I can't disagree with either of the points you made.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    just over the next hill
    Posts
    10,796
    Just like recommending no mammograms for women, it's a move by the Death Panels to reduce the load on elder care programs by allowing diseases that normally afflict the senior population to no longer be looked for. That way the older population dies off quicker and doesn't use programs like Social Security and Medicare as much.

    Besides, get rid of those who remember the past and you deprive the current generations of the people who could guide them back to America from the times before the current Socialist onslaught of the last decade or two.


    Bingo!!
    "You're not living in the story the world tells you you're living in. The story is not about the Clash of Civilizations, the March of Progress, the American Dream, the Rise of Civilization or the Struggle of Race, Class, and Gender. It's about the triumph of Jesus Christ in rescuing us from this passing world and bringing us into eternal ecstasy and perfection."---Mark Shea

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    212
    If you actually read the study it's hard to argue with the conclusion.

    If I am offered something that has a 0.1% chance of saving my life but a 3-4% chance of rendering me impotent or incontinent or both, I'm not taking it. I doubt many would.
    Last edited by skeptic; 05-24-2012 at 07:59 PM. Reason: spelling

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    4,337
    I saw what my dad went through after his surgery and there is no away I will ever go through that. There are somethings worse than dieing and this is one of them.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    7,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Dennis Olson View Post
    Panel calls for an end to routine prostate screening

    Published May 22, 2012

    | Associated Press

    Healthy men shouldn't get routine prostate cancer screenings, says updated advice from a government panel that found the PSA blood tests do more harm than good.
    Some of us were saying that this would happen a year ago, you know when the so called medical and insurance "spurts" declared that women no longer needed yearly mamograms or pap smears... now that the shoe is on the other foot...

    K-

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    7,231
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    If you actually read the study it's hard to argue with the conclusion.

    If I am offered something that has a 0.1% chance of saving my life but a 3-4% chance of rendering me impotent or incontinent or both, I'm not taking it. I doubt many would.
    The problem is is that there are various options of surgery for prostrate cancer, just like breast, uterine, and ovarian cancers, and yet the insurance companies are insistant on only one or two procedures because those are deemed as "cost effective".

    We're all at the mercy of pencil pushers... and may they experience all that they inflict upon others!

    K-

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts


NOTICE: Timebomb2000 is an Internet forum for discussion of world events and personal disaster preparation. Membership is by request only. The opinions posted do not necessarily represent those of TB2K Incorporated (the owner of this website), the staff or site host. Responsibility for the content of all posts rests solely with the Member making them. Neither TB2K Inc, the Staff nor the site host shall be liable for any content.

All original member content posted on this forum becomes the property of TB2K Inc. for archival and display purposes on the Timebomb2000 website venue. Said content may be removed or edited at staff discretion. The original authors retain all rights to their material outside of the Timebomb2000.com website venue. Publication of any original material from Timebomb2000.com on other websites or venues without permission from TB2K Inc. or the original author is expressly forbidden.



"Timebomb2000", "TB2K" and "Watching the World Tick Away" are Service Mark℠ TB2K, Inc. All Rights Reserved.