Screening for Prostate Cancer

Commentary on: Chou R, Croswell JM, Dana T, et al. Screening for prostate cancer: a review of the evidence for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2011;155:762–71.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web...

The prostate specific antigen (PSA) test should not be used to screen men for prostate cancer because it is unlikely to save lives and can cause harm, says an independent...

Update of the 2002 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation statement on screening for breast cancer in the general population. The USPSTF examined the evidence on the efficacy of 5 screening modalities in reducing mortality from breast cancer: film mammography, clinical breast examination, breast self-examination, digital mammography, and magnetic resonance imaging in order to update the 2002 recommendation. To accomplish this update, the USPSTF commissioned 2 studies: 1) a targeted systematic evidence review of 6 selected questions relating to benefits and harms of screening, and 2) a decision analysis that used population modeling techniques to compare the expected health outcomes and resource requirements of starting and ending mammography screening at different ages and using annual versus biennial screening intervals. The USPSTF recommends against routine screening mammography in women aged 40 to 49 years. The decision to start regular, biennial screening mammography before the age of 50 years should be an individual one and take into account patient context, including the patient's values regarding specific benefits and harms. (Grade C recommendation) The USPSTF recommends biennial screening mammography for women between the ages of 50 and 74 years. (Grade B recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the additional benefits and harms of screening mammography in women 75 years or older. (I statement) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the additional benefits and harms of clinical breast examination beyond screening mammography in women 40 years or older. (I statement) The USPSTF recommends against clinicians teaching women how to perform breast self-examination. (Grade D recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess additional benefits and harms of either digital mammography or magnetic resonance imaging instead of film mammography as screening modalities for breast cancer. (I statement).

ImportanceCarotid artery stenosis is atherosclerotic disease that affects extracranial carotid arteries. Asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis refers to stenosis in persons without a history of ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack, or other neurologic symptoms referable to the carotid arteries. The prevalence of asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis is low in the general population but increases with age.ObjectiveTo determine if its 2014 recommendation should be reaffirmed, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a reaffirmation evidence review. The reaffirmation update focused on the targeted key questions on the potential benefits and harms of screening and interventions, including revascularization procedures designed to improve carotid artery blood flow, in persons with asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis.PopulationThis recommendation statement applies to adults without a history of transient ischemic attack, stroke, or other neurologic signs or symptoms referable to the carotid arteries.Evidence AssessmentThe USPSTF found no new substantial evidence that could change its recommendation and therefore concludes with moderate certainty that the harms of screening for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis outweigh the benefits.RecommendationThe USPSTF recommends against screening for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis in the general adult population. (D recommendation)

Our website uses cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to use our site, or clicking "Continue," you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy | Continue JAMA Internal Medicine HomeNew OnlineCurrent IssueFor Authors Podcast Publications JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry (1919-1959) JN Learning / CMESubscribeJobsInstitutions / LibrariansReprints & Permissions Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Accessibility Statement 2023 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved Search All JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Forum Archive JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry Input Search Term Sign In Individual Sign In Sign inCreate an Account Access through your institution Sign In Purchase Options: Buy this article Rent this article Subscribe to the JAMA Internal Medicine journal

ACP Journal Club17 April 2012Review: PSA-based screening does not reduce prostate cancer mortality or all-cause mortalityPhilipp Dahm, MD, MHSc, FACSPhilipp Dahm, MD, MHSc, FACSUniversity of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA (P.D.)Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-156-8-201204170-02002 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Source CitationChou R, Croswell JM, Dana T, et al. Screening for prostate cancer: a review of the evidence for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:762-71. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21984740Clinical Impact RatingsGIM/FP/GP: Oncology: References1 US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for prostate cancer: draft recommendation statement. Oct 2011. www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf12/prostate/draftrecprostate.htm (accessed 24 Feb 2012). Google Scholar2 NIH Consensus Development Program. NIH state-of-the-science conference: Role of active surveillance in the management of men with localized prostate cancer. Dec 2011. www.consensus.nih.gov/2011/prostate.htm (accessed 24 Feb 2012). Google Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAuthors: Philipp Dahm, MD, MHSc, FACSAffiliations: University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA (P.D.)This article was published at Annals.org on 3 April 2012. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Metrics 17 April 2012Volume 156, Issue 8Page: JC4-2KeywordsAntigensCancer screeningCancer treatmentMortalityNumber needed to screenProstate cancerResearch designResearch quality assessmentSystematic reviews ePublished: 17 April 2012 Issue Published: 17 April 2012 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2012 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...

The dilemma facing individuals wishing to make decisions regarding prostate cancer (PrCA) screening pivots on two opposing outcomes: over-diagnosing indolent cancer and under-diagnosing virulent cancer. In conjunction with limited data on which to draw conclusions, this dilemma formed the basis on which the US Preventive Services Task Force made its decision to not recommend PSA screening. Data driving that decision-making process was derived nearly entirely from European and European-American men, even though African Americans are much more likely to be diagnosed with later-stage, more aggressive disease at younger ages. The discrepancy that we see between the US' highest-world-quintile incidence rates and second-lowest-world-quintile mortality rates may be explained entirely by the presence of high-virulence disease among African Americans. Clearly, detecting aggressive disease represents a significant public health issue and unmet clinical need. Development and discovery of biomarkers to predict PrCA that is likely to kill if left untreated is the major challenge in PrCA prevention and control. With this background in mind we sought to interrogate a large data set with multiple PSAs measured at regular (i.e., annual) intervals to see if we could predict high-virulence PrCA. Using the PLCO data we showed that with ≥three measures we were able to improve sensitivity and specificity of the PSA test to >97% overall and >99% among African-American men for detecting virulent, clinically relevant high-risk prostate cancer (PSA level ≥ 20ng/ml, cancer that invades prostate capsule, PrCA that involves more than one lobe, or Gleason score >7). At this juncture, we have begun to address the question of what can be done to distinguish aggressive PrCA in African-American men. We propose creating a cohort of 48,000 individuals who are willing to undergo annual PSA screening with the intention of validating/refining the algorithm that the University of South Carolina team developed using PLCO trial data that combines three or more PSA measures to detect virulent, high-risk PrCA. This cohort also would serve another important purpose. There currently exists no other cohort with a sufficient number of African-American men to address other important cancer-related health issues. So, if designed correctly, this cohort could serve numerous other purposes. This would be a simple follow-up study design with extensive baseline data collection and follow-up data collected at regular (i.e., annual) intervals. This would require strong community buy-in, commitment to providing information needed for informed decision-making, formulating rules for referring men out for diagnostic workup, and putting procedures in place for data linkage (e.g., to the cancer registries). Twelve institutions in 10 states across the US have expressed interest in being involved. Currently, there are two, non-mutually exclusive, options for recruitment. The Veterans Administration (VA) system could be ideal setting for this because: 1. They already have the screening infrastructure in place; 2. There isn't the financial incentive to over-diagnose and over-treat; 3. There is an excellent system of medical records; 4. There are many African-American veterans in the VA system; and 5. The medical home (for subsequent care) already is in place. The NCI's community oncology research program (NCORP) appears to understand the CBPR imperative. As such, they have good access to local, interested communities and in some regions of the country this includes large AA populations. They have excellent community relations and local “connectivity” that could help to ensure a competent, caring ‘medical home' that would be essential for program viability (i.e., recruitment and follow-up). Depending on geographical particulars, there could be good overlap with the VA. NCORPS could add an important element of academic medicine/ NCI imprimatur to the mix. Citation Format: James R. Hebert, Abraham Turner, Johnny Payne, Azza Shoaibi. Screening via multiple PSA measures to detect virulent prostate cancer could provide a way to address fundamental issues in African-American men's health. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Ninth AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2016 Sep 25-28; Fort Lauderdale, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2017;26(2 Suppl):Abstract nr C66.

To the Editor: In reporting on the effect of prostate-cancer screening, Welch et al. (Oct. 29 issue)1 suggest that since the introduction of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening, the incidence of metastatic disease has decreased by 50%. However, randomized clinical trials examining this practice have shown little survival benefit.2,3 In 2012, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended against PSA-based prostate-cancer screening,4 and that recommendation has been adopted by primary care governing bodies.5 We evaluated the presentation and prostate-cancer diagnosis of men referred for an elevated PSA level over a 3-year period coinciding with the USPSTF recommendations. The number . . .

In 2016, the US Preventive Services Task Force concluded that there was "insufficient" ("I" statement) evidence to support universal primary care screening for autism spectrum disorder. The statement led to controversy among research and clinical communities. Although a number of papers have since been published arguing for the potential benefit of autism spectrum disorder screening, none adequately address the potential harms of autism spectrum disorder screening. This evidence gap may relate to confusion regarding how the US Preventive Services Task Force conceptualizes and evaluates potential harm. In this commentary, we explore how the US Preventive Services Task Force operationalizes harm and discuss how the potential for harm was described in the "I" statement on autism spectrum disorder screening. This information can serve as a guide for investigators working to study the benefits and harms of autism spectrum disorder screening in order to fill the research gaps cited by the US Preventive Services Task Force report. Finally, we recommend future research directions for exploring harms of autism spectrum disorder screening, filling cited research gaps, and ultimately ensuring that the benefits of autism spectrum disorder screening truly outweigh the harms for all children and their families.

This is an update of the 2002 US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation on screening for child and adolescent major depressive disorder. The US Preventive Services Task Force weighed the benefits and harms of screening and treatment for major depressive disorder in children and adolescents, incorporating new evidence addressing gaps in the 2002 recommendation statement. Evidence examined included the benefits and harms of screening, the accuracy of primary care-feasible screening tests, and the benefits and risks of treating depression by using psychotherapy and/or medications in patients aged 7 to 18 years. Screen adolescents (12-18 years of age) for major depressive disorder when systems are in place to ensure accurate diagnosis, psychotherapy (cognitive-behavioral or interpersonal), and follow-up (B recommendation). Evidence is insufficient to warrant a recommendation to screen children (7-11 years of age) for major depressive disorder (I statement).

Background - There is suggestive evidence of familial clustering of breast and prostate cancer in first-degree relatives; women with a family history of prostate cancer are at increased risk of breast cancer. Few studies have investigated joint family history of breast and prostate cancer and prostate cancer risk, and no study to date has examined lethal prostate cancer. Methods - We studied 42,672 from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study between 1996 to 2012. During follow-up, 4,258 prostate cancer cases were diagnosed, of whom 380 were lethal disease. Men self-reported family history of breast and prostate cancer, including in siblings or parents. Using cause-specific hazards regression, we estimated hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of the association between family history and prostate cancer risk and progression. Results - About 8% of men had a family history of prostate cancer, 8.7% had a family history of breast cancer, and 1.4% of men had a family history of both breast and prostate cancer. A family history of prostate cancer was significantly associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer (HR: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.54-1.85). Increased risk was higher for men with a father diagnosed with prostate cancer (HR: 1.64 95% CI: 1.49-1.80) than for men with a diagnosis in a brother(s) (HR: 1.51 95% CI: 1.27-1.80). A positive family history of breast cancer was associated with a small, but significant 22% increased risk (HR: 1.22; 95% CI: 1.11-1.35). Familial breast cancer in a sister (HR: 1.22 95% CI: 1.06-1.41) increased risk more than familial breast cancer in a mother (HR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.99-1.25). Men with a family history of both prostate and breast cancer had a 52% (HR: 1.52; 95%CI: 1.23-1.88) increased risk of prostate cancer compared to men with no family history of either cancer. Risk of lethal prostate cancer was also significantly increased for men with a positive family history of prostate cancer (HR: 1.64; 95% CI: 1.20-2.24), as well as for men with a family history of breast cancer (HR: 1.47; 95% CI: 1.07-2.01). Conclusions - These results support the findings of familial aggregation of breast and prostate cancer, and for the first time suggest an association between familial breast cancer and lethal prostate cancer. Data from this prospective study have translational relevance for family counseling of cancer patients. Citation Format: Lauren E. Barber, Travis A. Gerke, Sarah C. Markt, Giovanni Parmigiani, Lorelei A. Mucci. A family affair: Prostate cancer risk and family history of breast or prostate cancer. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 107th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2016 Apr 16-20; New Orleans, LA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(14 Suppl):Abstract nr 2543.

ImportanceDepression is a leading cause of disability in the US. Children and adolescents with depression typically have functional impairments in their performance at school or work as well as in their interactions with their families and peers. Depression can also negatively affect the developmental trajectories of affected youth. Major depressive disorder (MDD) in children and adolescents is strongly associated with recurrent depression in adulthood; other mental disorders; and increased risk for suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and suicide completion. Suicide is the second-leading cause of death among youth aged 10 to 19 years. Psychiatric disorders and previous suicide attempts increase suicide risk.ObjectiveTo update its 2014 and 2016 recommendations, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of screening, accuracy of screening, and benefits and harms of treatment of MDD and suicide risk in children and adolescents that would be applicable to primary care settings.PopulationChildren and adolescents who do not have a diagnosed mental health condition or are not showing recognized signs or symptoms of depression or suicide risk.Evidence AssessmentThe USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for MDD in adolescents aged 12 to 18 years has a moderate net benefit. The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient on screening for MDD in children 11 years or younger. The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient on the benefit and harms of screening for suicide risk in children and adolescents owing to a lack of evidence.RecommendationThe USPSTF recommends screening for MDD in adolescents aged 12 to 18 years. (B recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for MDD in children 11 years or younger. (I statement) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for suicide risk in children and adolescents. (I statement)

Cancer screening has become an obligatory appendix to all periodic and continuity care of adults. It is ritualistic and seldom questioned. It is discrete and modular and so easily audited for 'quality'. Its impact on actual health ranges from slightly helpful to slightly harmful, and even these conclusions are usually more than slightly speculative. While, in some cases, the existing data includes the probability of an occasional life saved, all screening programmes increase many-fold the lifetime chance of confronting a false alarm and thus becoming, for a time, a cancer patient.

The New US Preventive Services Task Force “C” Draft Recommendation for Prostate Cancer Screening

ImportanceCeliac disease is caused by an immune response in persons who are genetically susceptible to dietary gluten, a protein complex found in wheat, rye, and barley. Ingestion of gluten by persons with celiac disease causes immune-mediated inflammatory damage to the small intestine.ObjectiveTo issue a new US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for celiac disease.Evidence ReviewThe USPSTF reviewed the evidence on the accuracy of screening in asymptomatic adults, adolescents, and children; the potential benefits and harms of screening vs not screening and targeted vs universal screening; and the benefits and harms of treatment of screen-detected celiac disease. The USPSTF also reviewed contextual information on the prevalence of celiac disease among patients without obvious symptoms and the natural history of subclinical celiac disease.FindingsThe USPSTF found inadequate evidence on the accuracy of screening for celiac disease, the potential benefits and harms of screening vs not screening or targeted vs universal screening, and the potential benefits and harms of treatment of screen-detected celiac disease.Conclusions and RecommendationThe USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for celiac disease in asymptomatic persons. (I statement)