As a corollary, there’s much discussion about the benefits of screening for prostate cancer. The procedure itself carries some risks, and it can lead to operations that add further risks, a significant fraction of which statistically aren’t necessary.
“A 2018 United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) draft adjusted the prior opposition to PSA screening. It suggests shared decision-making regarding screening in healthy males 55 to 69 years of age. The final recommendation for that age group states screening should only be done in those who wish it. In those 70 and over, screening remains not recommended.”
The idea here is to screen people who both have a relatively high risk of having prostate cancer and statistically have long enough to live for it to become problematic, but even for that group, screening still isn’t a clear win.
And this is for the USA, where, in general, sending in the cavalry and doing something is preferred over a “wait and see” approach.
This is highly controversial in the field and is looking like a bad recommendation from the task force. A study has shown that metastatic prostate cancer has increased as a result of this.
One of my mentors, age 67 got recently diagnosed with prostate cancer due to a PSA test. No symptomes. His doctor (from the VA), recommended radiation treatement. The treatement fried the nerves in his legs and he now has much trouble in life and doesn't trust a thing they say.
Did they get second and third professional opinion? You need to do your due diligence with these diagnostic tests in my experience as a patient, it falls on our shoulders to make an informed decision on carrying out invasive preventive procedures (risk - lifelong side effects vs reward - preventing cancerous tissue growth, etc.).
Otherwise you can end up in a situation where you regret not taking action sooner when things have taken a turn for the worst e.g. terminal illness that could have been prevented if caught earlier e.g. metastasizing cancer cells
He got radiation treatment (for prostate!) at 67? That's very odd -- radiation treatment is not recommended for a patient who would be expected to live for more than 10 years in the absence of the cancer.
Radiation therapy for prostate cancer is in fact odd for a patient expected to live to see the side effects. Standard treatment is nothing for a small tumor, surgery for an advanced tumor when the patient has 10+ years of life expectancy, radiation for an advanced tumor when the patient has short life expectancy.
In fact you are a bit wrong. Surgery and radiation are routinely considered as options for treating the same type of tumor. It is more common to do surgery in younger patients but it is incorrect to say radiation is “not recommended” in these cases. And 67 is not young.
Source: UCSF Prostate Cancer team (#4 ranked by US News & World report)
I don’t know what the right amount of testing is, but proponents of less testing argue that its downsides are worse than its benefits, not that testing doesn’t prevent cancer.
I don’t see how the reference you give addresses that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostate_cancer_screening:
“A 2018 United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) draft adjusted the prior opposition to PSA screening. It suggests shared decision-making regarding screening in healthy males 55 to 69 years of age. The final recommendation for that age group states screening should only be done in those who wish it. In those 70 and over, screening remains not recommended.”
The idea here is to screen people who both have a relatively high risk of having prostate cancer and statistically have long enough to live for it to become problematic, but even for that group, screening still isn’t a clear win.
And this is for the USA, where, in general, sending in the cavalry and doing something is preferred over a “wait and see” approach.