Lots of news coverage about a Scandinavian prostate cancer study. Here’s a guest post on the study from Richard M. Hoffman, MD, MPH, Professor of Medicine at the University of New Mexico School of Medicine, and Staff Physician in the New Mexico VA Health Care System. He has done story reviews and written blog posts on this site in the past. He has worked to develop shared decision making tools for prostate cancer screening and treatment of localized prostate cancer.
—————————
This week the 23-year follow up data from the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group Study Number 4 (SPCG-4) was published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The landmark SPCG-4 study was the first to show that men with localized cancers (confined to the prostate) had a survival benefit if they underwent radical prostatectomy surgery compared to watchful waiting (no active treatment). Study results, first published in 2002, have consistently shown that the surgical group had a lower risk for dying from prostate cancer and developing metastatic disease than the watchful waiting group, and the most recent report also showed a lower risk for death from any cause.
For me, the study raises 2 important issues relevant to prostate cancer in the United States. The first point is that PSA screening became widespread in the US in the early 1990s—a decade before the first SPCG-4 publication. Perversely, the American way was to expend considerable resources to promote screening efforts to find cancers before knowing whether these cancers could be successfully treated. The second point is that the SPCG-4 results are not readily translatable to US practice. Only 5% of the study cohort had cancers detected by screening PSA—the rest either had symptoms and/or a palpable tumor. In the US, a substantial proportion of men with PSA-detected cancers have microscopic disease—which may never cause problems during a man’s lifetime. The US Prostate Cancer Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT) also evaluated surgery vs. watchful waiting. However, PIVOT, which mostly enrolled men with PSA-detected cancers, found no benefit for surgery. Post-hoc analyses suggested that only the small proportion of men with higher-risk cancers (based on PSA and the microscopic appearance of the cancer) seemed to have a survival benefit. This suggests that most men with PSA-detected cancers—the great majority of whom undergo aggressive treatment–will experience only the potential harms of treatment without any expectation of experiencing a prostate-cancer survival benefit.
Although the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has advised against performing PSA testing, hundreds of thousands of men are still being diagnosed each year with prostate cancer. These men need to be aware that early detection and aggressive treatment might not be good for their health, particularly for men with low-risk microscopic cancers. These men should consider strategies such as active surveillance (AS). With AS, men are closely monitored and offered aggressive treatment only if there is evidence that cancer is progressing—which we now know from the SPCG-4 and PIVOT trials is when treatment is most likely to be beneficial.
———————
Publisher’s note:
A web search turns up some really unhelpful and misleading headlines on this study, such as:
Prostatectomy still superior to watchful waiting over long term
Stories in the Boston Globe, CNN.com, the Associated Press and the Los Angeles Times each included at least some semblance of caveats or independent assessment of the findings, although the latter’s headline – “Surgery reduced risk of death by 44% in men with prostate cancer” – simply wasn’t helpful.
Some headlines – like the Globe’s “Study fuels prostate cancer debate” – followed the mammography-trial-du-jour framing of “conflicting, confusing” results. Read beyond the headlines and you’ll see why that’s unhelpful for public comprehension.
——————–
Follow us on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer
https://twitter.com/healthnewsrevu
Comments (5)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
David Miller
March 6, 2014 at 10:20 amDefine a “low risk” cancer for me. Define “low-risk microscopic cancer” if that indeed is a separate term.
Also, would it be better for a guy to find out he has prostate cancer before or after it became metastatic?
Gary Schwitzer
March 6, 2014 at 2:21 pmThe American Urological Association defines low-risk prostate cancer as:
A National Cancer Institute article states:
A simple web search will lead you to much discussion about stratifying risk for prostate cancer.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like