This is a continuation of yesterday's post:
"68 Ga-PSMA & too much bad news"
The concensus seems to be that men want to hear bad news. Which is what one would expect from men who might have died by now had they not been screened for PCa.
But I have to defend my GP who no longer automatically does once-routine blood tests, so as to protect patients from over-treatment. I believe that the Canadian health system also takes that approach. The issue seems to be that patients want every anomaly investigated & fixed, & the process can be worse than the health risk. Many out-of-normal-range results are merely suggestive of disease. These test results often lead to increasingly invasive tests with, ultimately, a low probability of uncovering serious disease. A prostate biopsy due to a PSA of 4-10 has only a 20% chance of finding cancer. And there are serious cancers with lower PSAs.
Patient-driven treatment has been case with many Gleason score 3+3 cases. They hear the word "cancer" & want it gone. Urologists get the blame - after all, there is a profit motive - but patients have had a significant role in the over-treatment problem & have contributed to the ludicrous U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines.
(But if I had been a Gleason 3+3 and been offered active surveilance [AS], I would have been leery after hearing that 25-30% of Gleason 3+3 cases progress. And AS seems to be based on regular future biopsies, rather than up-front further tests, such as the 4K Score. Why wait until your 3+3 has become a 4+3?)
(A peculiarity of PCa (in the U.S. at least) is that having it increases one's chance of being diagnosed with thyroid cancer - & vice versa. This has been dismissed as being a case of hypochondriacs (that word wasn't actually used) being over-screened for both conditions. (Apparently. thyroid cancer is another disease that is over-detected & over-treated.) The justification for the conclusion was the biological implausibility of a connection, although iodine is important to both organs and insufficiency is common.)
The trend of doing less screening is due to a desire to protect the group, at the expense of a minority of individuals in the group. Hopefully, the pendulum will swing back, due to the availability of better screening tools.
-Patrick