By using this site, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Accept
Health Works CollectiveHealth Works Collective
  • Health
    • Mental Health
    Health
    Healthcare organizations are operating on slimmer profit margins than ever. One report in August showed that they are even lower than the beginning of the…
    Show More
    Top News
    physical health
    5 Ways Playing Games Can Improve Neural and Physical Health
    September 9, 2022
    Reasons For Hair Loss and Its Treatment
    Reasons For Hair Loss and Its Treatment
    February 16, 2022
    healthcare organization
    5 Actionable Strategies For Healthcare Organizations
    August 15, 2022
    Latest News
    6 Essential Strategies for Improving Your Medical Practice
    January 25, 2023
    Staying Positive While Living with Mesothelioma
    January 24, 2023
    The Many Health Benefits of Being Outdoors
    January 17, 2023
    How to Assess a Safe Placement of a Nasogastric or Nasoenteric Tube and Its Complications
    January 19, 2023
  • Policy and Law
    • Global Healthcare
    • Medical Ethics
    Policy and Law
    Get the latest updates about Insurance policies and Laws in the Healthcare industry for different geographical locations.
    Show More
    Top News
    Here’s What To Know And Expect About The Future Of Healthcare
    January 22, 2020
    How Your Healthcare Facility Can Ace Their Patient Safety Survey
    February 5, 2021
    Consider These Benefits Of Concierge Healthcare For The Elderly
    July 7, 2020
    Latest News
    Simplifying the Genetic Testing Process: How At-Home Kits are Changing the Game
    January 25, 2023
    9 Hospitals That Have Introduced Green Initiatives
    January 25, 2023
    Why a Health Retreat Can Be the Best Medicine
    January 12, 2023
    Best Money-Saving Tips for Health Managers
    January 12, 2023
  • Medical Innovations
  • News
  • Wellness
  • Tech
Search
© 2023 HealthWorks Collective. All Rights Reserved.
Reading: PSA screening: Does It or Doesn’t It?
Share
Sign In
Notification Show More
Latest News
ABA therapist
Everything You Need to Know About Applied Behavior Analysis
Health
Small Lifestyle Changes That Can Have A Big Impact On Your Well-Being
lifestyle Wellness
The Future Of Medicine: How Immunotherapy Is Saving Lives
The Future Of Medicine: How Immunotherapy Is Saving Lives
Technology
medical practice and technology advancement
6 Essential Strategies for Improving Your Medical Practice
Technology
digital dental x-ray
How Does A Digital Dental X-Ray Work?
Dental health
Aa
Health Works CollectiveHealth Works Collective
Aa
Search
Have an existing account? Sign In
Follow US
  • About
  • Contact
  • Privacy
© 2023 HealthWorks Collective. All Rights Reserved.
Health Works Collective > Policy & Law > Public Health > PSA screening: Does It or Doesn’t It?
DiagnosticsNewsPublic Health

PSA screening: Does It or Doesn’t It?

Marya Zilberberg
Last updated: 2012/03/16 at 5:02 AM
Marya Zilberberg
Share
7 Min Read
SHARE

A study in the NEJM reports that after 11 years of follow up in a very large cohort of men randomized either to PSA screening every 4 years (~73,000 subjects) or to no screening (~89,000 subjects) there was both a reduction in death and no mortality advantage. How confusing can things get? Here is a screenshot of today’s headlines about it from Google News:

A study in the NEJM reports that after 11 years of follow up in a very large cohort of men randomized either to PSA screening every 4 years (~73,000 subjects) or to no screening (~89,000 subjects) there was both a reduction in death and no mortality advantage. How confusing can things get? Here is a screenshot of today’s headlines about it from Google News:

How can the same test cut prostate cancer deaths and at the same time not save lives? This is counter-intuitive. Yet I hope that a regular reader of this blog is not surprised at all.  For the rest of you, here is a clue to the answer: competing risks.

What’s competing risks? It is a mental model of life and death that states that there are multiple causes competing to claim your life. If you are an obese smoker, you may die of a heart attack or diabetes complications or a cancer, or something altogether different. So, if I put you on a statin and get you to lose weight, but you continue to smoke, I may save you from dying from a heart attack, but not from cancer. One major feature of the competing risks model that confounds the public and students of epidemiology alike is that these risks can actually add up to over 100% for an individual. How is this possible? Well, the person I describe may have (and I am pulling these numbers out of thin air) a 50% risk of dying from a heart attack, 30% from lung cancer, 20% from head and neck cancer, and 30% from complications of diabetes. This adds up to 130%; how can this be? In an imaginary world of risk prediction anything is possible. The point is that he will likely die of one thing, and that is his 100% cause of death.

More Read

Do You Need Life Insurance? What Does It Cover?

Why Is Testing for HIV At Home Convenient For You?
Dr. James Murtagh Tackles Pulmonary and Other Diseases
Is The Environment Safe for Your Eyes? Let’s Take a Look
7 Healthcare Advancements For Penile Health

Before I get to translating this to the PSA data, I want to say that I find the second paragraph in the Results section quite problematic. It tells me how many of the PSA tests were positive, how many screenings on average each man underwent, what percentage of those with a positive test underwent a biopsy, and how many of those biopsies turned up cancer. What I cannot tell from this is precisely how many of the men had a false positive test and still had to undergo a biopsy — the denominators in this paragraph shape-shift from tests to men. The best I can do is estimate: 136,689 screening tests, of which 16.6% (15,856) were positive. Dividing this by 2.27 average tests per subject yields 6,985 men with a positive PSA screen, of whom 6,963 had a biopsy-proven prostate cancer. And here is what’s most unsettling: at the cut-off for PSA level of 4.0 or higher, the specificity of this test for cancer is only 60-70%. What this means is that at this cut-off value, a positive PSA would be a false positive (positive test in the absence of disease) 30-40% of the time. But if my calculations are anywhere in the ballpark of correct, the false positive rate in this trial was only 0.3%. This makes me think that either I am reading this paragraph incorrectly, or there is some mistake. I am especially concerned since the PSA cut-off used in the current study was 3.0, which would result in a rise in the sensitivity with a concurrent decrease in specificity and therefore even more false positives. So this is indeed bothersome, but I am willing to write it off to poor reporting of the data.

Let’s get to mortality. The authors state that the death rates from prostate cancer were 0.39 in the screening group and 0.50 in the control group per 1,000 patient-years. Recall from the meat post that patient-years are roughly a product of the number of subjects observed by the number of years of observation. So, again, to put the numbers in perspective, the absolute risk reduction here for an individual over 10 years is from 0.5% to 0.39%, again microscopic. Nevertheless, the relative risk reduction was a significant 21%. But of course we are only talking about deaths from prostate cancer, not from all other competitors. And this is the crux of the matter: a man in the screening group was just as likely to die as a similar man in the non-screening group, only causes other than prostate cancer were more likely to claim his life.

The authors go through the motions of calculating the number needed to invite for screening (NNI) in order to avoid a single prostate cancer death, and it turns out to be 1,055. But really this number is only meaningful if we decide to get into death design in a something like “I don’t want to die of this, but that other cause is OK” kind of a choice. And although I don’t doubt that there may be takers for such a plan, I am pretty sure that my tax dollars should not pay for it. And thus I cast my vote for “doesn’t.”       

TAGGED: prostate cancer, prostate cancer screening, PSA

Sign Up For Daily Newsletter

Be keep up! Get the latest breaking news delivered straight to your inbox.
By signing up, you agree to our Terms of Use and acknowledge the data practices in our Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time.
Marya Zilberberg March 16, 2012
Share this Article
Facebook Twitter Copy Link Print
Share
Previous Article Hospital Robots Are on Their Way
Next Article Image The Bliss of Forgetting

Stay Connected

1.5k Followers Like
4.5k Followers Follow
2.8k Followers Pin
136k Subscribers Subscribe

Latest News

ABA therapist
Everything You Need to Know About Applied Behavior Analysis
Health January 26, 2023
Small Lifestyle Changes That Can Have A Big Impact On Your Well-Being
lifestyle Wellness January 26, 2023
The Future Of Medicine: How Immunotherapy Is Saving Lives
The Future Of Medicine: How Immunotherapy Is Saving Lives
Technology January 26, 2023
medical practice and technology advancement
6 Essential Strategies for Improving Your Medical Practice
Technology January 25, 2023

You Might also Like

at-home genetic testing method kits
Global Healthcare

Simplifying the Genetic Testing Process: How At-Home Kits are Changing the Game

January 25, 2023
home safety tips
News

9 Tips to Minimize Injury Risks and Live Peacefully at Home

January 23, 2023
tips to quit smoking
News

Quitting Smoking: 6 Tips to Help You Kick the Habit

January 17, 2023
health insurance for young adults
HealthNews

Benefits of Buying Health Insurance for Your Adults

January 10, 2023
//

We influence million of users and is the most authentic source of information on healthcare business and technology news.

Quick Links

  • About
  • Contact
  • Privacy
Subscribe

Subscribe to our newsletter to get our newest articles instantly!

Follow US

© 2008-2023 HealthWorks Collective. All Rights Reserved.

Removed from reading list

Undo
Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Lost your password?