Men shouldn't be screened for prostate cancer with a common blood test, a widely followed federal advisory panel recommended on Monday. But the report isn't likely to quell a dispute about whether the test's risks outweigh its potential benefits.

trantula_77 · 2012-05-22T13:38:45+00:00

The vast majority of physicians already agree with this. The media wants to play this up to be like the breast cancer screening changes while in reality the PSA testing is a very poor predictor of prostate cancer.

There may be a bit of utility in monitoring baseline PSA and watching for a change, but even then the utility is modest.

Lastly, the vast majority of men die with prostate cancer not from it because it is a disease of age. Up to 80% of 80 year olds have it with no symptoms and it is discovered on autopsy from other causes of death. I do realize that it is the second cause of cancer death in men but I agree with the USPSTF that PSA is not the way to prevent cancer death. That said, it is a guideline and not a rule; if one really wants screening many doctors will oblige since it is a cheap test.

EDIT: I should note that this particular article is much better than many of the mainstream news reports that portrayed the decision and controversial. This article gives facts without editorializing.

Rhynovirus · 2012-05-22T15:00:42+00:00

Early identification with PSA testing has not been shown to have a meaningful impact on length or quality of life.

AnthonyZarat · 2012-05-22T15:43:45+00:00

So what is the problem? Obamacare's U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) made several woman-only changes, and MRAs complained about it:

Birth control (women only)
Tubal ligation (women only)
Smoking cessation (women only)
Cancer prevention (girls only)
Well woman visits (women only)

Now, the USPSTF decides to make a male-only recommendation, and the MRA cry-babies are angry?

Save money by cutting prostate screening coverage (men only)

Stop complaining, guys! We wanted Obamacare to take notice of us, right? Now it has! And just think, the money saved from screening and treatment of critically ill men will be so much better used to pay for Sandra Fluke's exploratory adventures! What are you all complaining about?

AnthonyZarat · 2012-05-22T16:21:05+00:00

Here is the graph comparing survivors who are treated with those who are not: http://i.imgur.com/zfHof.jpg

Here is the executive summary:

"This means that 1410 men would need to be screened ... to prevent one death from prostate cancer."

Read the whole article here: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0810084

A cost analysis showing that (1) the test costs $48 per person, (2) diagnosis and work up (treatment plan) costs $1059 per positive test, (3) average treatment costs $17,542 per patient, and (4) effective cost per life-year saved is $51,267:

Volume 46, Issue 2, August 1995, Urology, Pages 125–141 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0090429599801812

So now you know that, as a male, your life is worth $51,267 per year (under Obamacare). You can also compare this to the cost of Sandra Fluke's "medical need" for contraception ($3000/year, according to Fluke). Obamacare is willing to sacrifice the life of one man, in order to pay for 17 women to liberate their inner "O".

Sound fair?

Comments