User login
In its most recent guidance, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) revised a previous 2012 recommendation against routine screening for prostate cancer to instead endorse individual decision-making for men aged 55 to 69 years (grade C).
In the update guidance, which was published in 2018, the task force still recommended against PSA-based screening for prostate cancer in men 70 years and older (grade D) due to a range of potential risks and harms. Guidelines from the American Urological Association and American Cancer Society have echoed that recommendation, in general agreement that men over the age of 70 or with limited life expectancy show little benefit from the screening.
To take a closer look at how commonly men are being screened for prostate cancer, based not only on their age but their estimated life expectancy, Kevin H. Kensler, ScD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, and colleagues conducted a cross-sectional study using data from the 2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS).
“Our findings indicate that many males aged 70 years and older or those with a high risk of death within 10 years undergo prostate cancer screening despite the recommendation against screening in these populations by current guidelines,” the authors wrote in their paper, published in JAMA Network Open. The results underscore that “enhancements to the shared decision-making process are needed to ensure that older males who undergo screening are those who may potentially benefit,” they noted.
For the study, the authors identified 57,397 men aged 60 and older without a history of prostate cancer who reported undergoing a screening PSA test in the prior 2 years.
Using a risk factor system, mortality risk was estimated based on the scales ranging from 5.5 or less to 10.0 or greater, corresponding to the estimated 10-year mortality of less than 30% to 71% or more, respectively.
Of the men, 19.2% were aged 70 to 74 years, 13.0% were aged 75 to 79 years, and 12.3% were aged 80 years or older. The rest were 69 years or younger.
While the estimated 2-year prostate cancer screening rates were 36.3% among those aged 60 to 64 years and 42.8% for those 65 to 69 years, the rates were even higher, at 47.1%, among those aged 70 to 74 years, and similar, at 42.7%, in the 75 to 79 years of age range. Among those aged 80 years and older, 30.4% had been screened.
While the screening frequency was 43.4% among males with the greatest estimated life expectancy, a fair percentage of men, 30.4%, with the lowest life expectancy, indicative of a 71% or greater risk of death within 10 years, received prostate cancer screening.
In fact, among those with lowest life expectancy, the screening rates were greater than 20% in all age groups.
Screening in Older Age: Benefit in Reducing Mortality Low
Autopsy research indicates that, in fact, as many as 50% of men do have prostate cancer at age 80; however, many of those tumors are low-risk and unlikely to affect the health of the men.
If detected early, as is the intention of screening, prostate cancer can take years to advance and the likelihood of receiving any mortality benefit from continued screening in older age is low.
Furthermore, screening in older age can have implications, including a higher risk of complications following a false positive prostate biopsy that may not have been necessary in the first place, the authors explained.
“Given the long natural history of prostate cancer and lead time associated with PSA-based screening, these males [aged 70 and older or with a high risk of death within 10 years] have a low likelihood of receiving any mortality benefit from continued screening,” the authors reported.
“Yet they face the potential harms of overdiagnosis, such as complications after prostate biopsy for a false-positive screening and psychological stress associated with a cancer diagnosis.”
Guideline Confusion, Habit, Among Reasons for Continued Screening
Among key reasons for the continued screening of men well into old age is the fluctuating history of the guidelines, Dr. Kensler said in an interview.
“There has been considerable variation in prostate cancer screening guidelines over time and across organizations that make screening recommendations, and this has inevitably led to some confusion among clinicians,” he explained.
However, the evidence of a lack of benefit over the age of 70 is strong enough that not performing PSA-based screening among men ages 70 or older is a Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measure for quality of care, he noted.
Nevertheless, “I think the trends we found in our analysis reflect that it is difficult for patients and providers to stop providing screening once they have already started it,” Dr. Kensler said.
Another motivator may be an inclination by clinicians to err on the side of caution, he added.
“For clinicians, although they may be aware of the guidelines, they may perhaps fear that they will not have offered screening to one of the older individuals who would have benefited from it even though they recognize that most would not,” Dr. Kensler noted.
Too often, however, such screenings “can lead to a cascade of other events that end up harming the patient without extending their lifespan,” he said.
Difficult Discussions
Complicating matters is the task of informing patients that due to their life expectancy, screening is considered to not likely be worthwhile — which may not be an easy discussion.
“For patients, hearing that they are at a stage of life where they may not benefit from screening is an unpleasant message to receive,” Dr. Kensler said.
“Having an in-depth conversation on this topic is also difficult given the many other health topics that clinicians and patients must cover during a visit.”
Ultimately, “these and other factors lead to inertia, where it is easier to stick to the status quo of continuing screening.”
The challenges underscore the need for improvements to the shared decision-making process to make sure that older men who do undergo prostrate screening will benefit, Dr. Kensler argued.
“If the guidelines are going to recommend shared decision-making, we need to provide tools to help patients and clinicians navigate these potentially difficult conversations.
Life Expectancy Uncertainties
Commenting on the research in an interview, Kyle Richards, MD, associate professor with the Department of Urology at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, in Madison, noted that, “while most urology experts agree that we should not screen for prostate cancer in men with less than 5-10 years life expectancy, the challenge is deciding which patients have a more limited life expectancy.”
Tools and calculators are available to try to calculate life expectancy, “but they can be cumbersome and difficult to incorporate into clinical practice,” he added.
Indeed, the difficulty in accurately estimating life expectancy is also a limitation of the study, he noted.
“The challenge with a study like this is it is very difficult to accurately estimate life expectancy,” he said. “It is easy to pick a cut point (i.e. age 70) but it is very difficult to calculate one’s life expectancy from survey data alone.”
Another limitation is that “screening PSA testing implies that the patient is not having any symptoms, and we do not know from this study if any of these men were getting PSA checks due to some urinary symptoms or other issues,” Dr. Richards added.
“So, while the study does raise some concern about screening PSA in older men, the data source makes it quite difficult to home in on this question.”
When it can be estimated, life expectancy can indeed provide a more useful guide in assessing the options if a patient is found to have prostate cancer, Dr. Richards noted.
“If a patient has a 5- to 10-year life expectancy, and they are diagnosed with a clinically significant prostate cancer, they absolutely may still benefit from treatment,” he said.
“If they have a clinically significant prostate cancer that is unrecognized, it could metastasize and cause symptoms or lead to death, as roughly 30,000 men die from prostate cancer each year in the USA.”
However, “if a patient has a limited life expectancy of less than 5 to 10 years, don’t screen for prostate cancer,” he advised. Proper guidance should furthermore be made loud and clear in guideline recommendations.
“I do think the USPSTF and AUA need to be the primary voices educating primary care and patients regarding prostate cancer screening,” Dr. Richards said.
“We need to be smart about whom to screen, when to screen, and how often to screen. And this message needs to be heard by the primary care providers that perform the screening.”
The study was supported by the Sandra and Edward Meyer Cancer Center and a grant from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health.
Dr. Kensler and Dr. Richards had no disclosures to report.
In its most recent guidance, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) revised a previous 2012 recommendation against routine screening for prostate cancer to instead endorse individual decision-making for men aged 55 to 69 years (grade C).
In the update guidance, which was published in 2018, the task force still recommended against PSA-based screening for prostate cancer in men 70 years and older (grade D) due to a range of potential risks and harms. Guidelines from the American Urological Association and American Cancer Society have echoed that recommendation, in general agreement that men over the age of 70 or with limited life expectancy show little benefit from the screening.
To take a closer look at how commonly men are being screened for prostate cancer, based not only on their age but their estimated life expectancy, Kevin H. Kensler, ScD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, and colleagues conducted a cross-sectional study using data from the 2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS).
“Our findings indicate that many males aged 70 years and older or those with a high risk of death within 10 years undergo prostate cancer screening despite the recommendation against screening in these populations by current guidelines,” the authors wrote in their paper, published in JAMA Network Open. The results underscore that “enhancements to the shared decision-making process are needed to ensure that older males who undergo screening are those who may potentially benefit,” they noted.
For the study, the authors identified 57,397 men aged 60 and older without a history of prostate cancer who reported undergoing a screening PSA test in the prior 2 years.
Using a risk factor system, mortality risk was estimated based on the scales ranging from 5.5 or less to 10.0 or greater, corresponding to the estimated 10-year mortality of less than 30% to 71% or more, respectively.
Of the men, 19.2% were aged 70 to 74 years, 13.0% were aged 75 to 79 years, and 12.3% were aged 80 years or older. The rest were 69 years or younger.
While the estimated 2-year prostate cancer screening rates were 36.3% among those aged 60 to 64 years and 42.8% for those 65 to 69 years, the rates were even higher, at 47.1%, among those aged 70 to 74 years, and similar, at 42.7%, in the 75 to 79 years of age range. Among those aged 80 years and older, 30.4% had been screened.
While the screening frequency was 43.4% among males with the greatest estimated life expectancy, a fair percentage of men, 30.4%, with the lowest life expectancy, indicative of a 71% or greater risk of death within 10 years, received prostate cancer screening.
In fact, among those with lowest life expectancy, the screening rates were greater than 20% in all age groups.
Screening in Older Age: Benefit in Reducing Mortality Low
Autopsy research indicates that, in fact, as many as 50% of men do have prostate cancer at age 80; however, many of those tumors are low-risk and unlikely to affect the health of the men.
If detected early, as is the intention of screening, prostate cancer can take years to advance and the likelihood of receiving any mortality benefit from continued screening in older age is low.
Furthermore, screening in older age can have implications, including a higher risk of complications following a false positive prostate biopsy that may not have been necessary in the first place, the authors explained.
“Given the long natural history of prostate cancer and lead time associated with PSA-based screening, these males [aged 70 and older or with a high risk of death within 10 years] have a low likelihood of receiving any mortality benefit from continued screening,” the authors reported.
“Yet they face the potential harms of overdiagnosis, such as complications after prostate biopsy for a false-positive screening and psychological stress associated with a cancer diagnosis.”
Guideline Confusion, Habit, Among Reasons for Continued Screening
Among key reasons for the continued screening of men well into old age is the fluctuating history of the guidelines, Dr. Kensler said in an interview.
“There has been considerable variation in prostate cancer screening guidelines over time and across organizations that make screening recommendations, and this has inevitably led to some confusion among clinicians,” he explained.
However, the evidence of a lack of benefit over the age of 70 is strong enough that not performing PSA-based screening among men ages 70 or older is a Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measure for quality of care, he noted.
Nevertheless, “I think the trends we found in our analysis reflect that it is difficult for patients and providers to stop providing screening once they have already started it,” Dr. Kensler said.
Another motivator may be an inclination by clinicians to err on the side of caution, he added.
“For clinicians, although they may be aware of the guidelines, they may perhaps fear that they will not have offered screening to one of the older individuals who would have benefited from it even though they recognize that most would not,” Dr. Kensler noted.
Too often, however, such screenings “can lead to a cascade of other events that end up harming the patient without extending their lifespan,” he said.
Difficult Discussions
Complicating matters is the task of informing patients that due to their life expectancy, screening is considered to not likely be worthwhile — which may not be an easy discussion.
“For patients, hearing that they are at a stage of life where they may not benefit from screening is an unpleasant message to receive,” Dr. Kensler said.
“Having an in-depth conversation on this topic is also difficult given the many other health topics that clinicians and patients must cover during a visit.”
Ultimately, “these and other factors lead to inertia, where it is easier to stick to the status quo of continuing screening.”
The challenges underscore the need for improvements to the shared decision-making process to make sure that older men who do undergo prostrate screening will benefit, Dr. Kensler argued.
“If the guidelines are going to recommend shared decision-making, we need to provide tools to help patients and clinicians navigate these potentially difficult conversations.
Life Expectancy Uncertainties
Commenting on the research in an interview, Kyle Richards, MD, associate professor with the Department of Urology at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, in Madison, noted that, “while most urology experts agree that we should not screen for prostate cancer in men with less than 5-10 years life expectancy, the challenge is deciding which patients have a more limited life expectancy.”
Tools and calculators are available to try to calculate life expectancy, “but they can be cumbersome and difficult to incorporate into clinical practice,” he added.
Indeed, the difficulty in accurately estimating life expectancy is also a limitation of the study, he noted.
“The challenge with a study like this is it is very difficult to accurately estimate life expectancy,” he said. “It is easy to pick a cut point (i.e. age 70) but it is very difficult to calculate one’s life expectancy from survey data alone.”
Another limitation is that “screening PSA testing implies that the patient is not having any symptoms, and we do not know from this study if any of these men were getting PSA checks due to some urinary symptoms or other issues,” Dr. Richards added.
“So, while the study does raise some concern about screening PSA in older men, the data source makes it quite difficult to home in on this question.”
When it can be estimated, life expectancy can indeed provide a more useful guide in assessing the options if a patient is found to have prostate cancer, Dr. Richards noted.
“If a patient has a 5- to 10-year life expectancy, and they are diagnosed with a clinically significant prostate cancer, they absolutely may still benefit from treatment,” he said.
“If they have a clinically significant prostate cancer that is unrecognized, it could metastasize and cause symptoms or lead to death, as roughly 30,000 men die from prostate cancer each year in the USA.”
However, “if a patient has a limited life expectancy of less than 5 to 10 years, don’t screen for prostate cancer,” he advised. Proper guidance should furthermore be made loud and clear in guideline recommendations.
“I do think the USPSTF and AUA need to be the primary voices educating primary care and patients regarding prostate cancer screening,” Dr. Richards said.
“We need to be smart about whom to screen, when to screen, and how often to screen. And this message needs to be heard by the primary care providers that perform the screening.”
The study was supported by the Sandra and Edward Meyer Cancer Center and a grant from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health.
Dr. Kensler and Dr. Richards had no disclosures to report.
In its most recent guidance, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) revised a previous 2012 recommendation against routine screening for prostate cancer to instead endorse individual decision-making for men aged 55 to 69 years (grade C).
In the update guidance, which was published in 2018, the task force still recommended against PSA-based screening for prostate cancer in men 70 years and older (grade D) due to a range of potential risks and harms. Guidelines from the American Urological Association and American Cancer Society have echoed that recommendation, in general agreement that men over the age of 70 or with limited life expectancy show little benefit from the screening.
To take a closer look at how commonly men are being screened for prostate cancer, based not only on their age but their estimated life expectancy, Kevin H. Kensler, ScD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, and colleagues conducted a cross-sectional study using data from the 2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS).
“Our findings indicate that many males aged 70 years and older or those with a high risk of death within 10 years undergo prostate cancer screening despite the recommendation against screening in these populations by current guidelines,” the authors wrote in their paper, published in JAMA Network Open. The results underscore that “enhancements to the shared decision-making process are needed to ensure that older males who undergo screening are those who may potentially benefit,” they noted.
For the study, the authors identified 57,397 men aged 60 and older without a history of prostate cancer who reported undergoing a screening PSA test in the prior 2 years.
Using a risk factor system, mortality risk was estimated based on the scales ranging from 5.5 or less to 10.0 or greater, corresponding to the estimated 10-year mortality of less than 30% to 71% or more, respectively.
Of the men, 19.2% were aged 70 to 74 years, 13.0% were aged 75 to 79 years, and 12.3% were aged 80 years or older. The rest were 69 years or younger.
While the estimated 2-year prostate cancer screening rates were 36.3% among those aged 60 to 64 years and 42.8% for those 65 to 69 years, the rates were even higher, at 47.1%, among those aged 70 to 74 years, and similar, at 42.7%, in the 75 to 79 years of age range. Among those aged 80 years and older, 30.4% had been screened.
While the screening frequency was 43.4% among males with the greatest estimated life expectancy, a fair percentage of men, 30.4%, with the lowest life expectancy, indicative of a 71% or greater risk of death within 10 years, received prostate cancer screening.
In fact, among those with lowest life expectancy, the screening rates were greater than 20% in all age groups.
Screening in Older Age: Benefit in Reducing Mortality Low
Autopsy research indicates that, in fact, as many as 50% of men do have prostate cancer at age 80; however, many of those tumors are low-risk and unlikely to affect the health of the men.
If detected early, as is the intention of screening, prostate cancer can take years to advance and the likelihood of receiving any mortality benefit from continued screening in older age is low.
Furthermore, screening in older age can have implications, including a higher risk of complications following a false positive prostate biopsy that may not have been necessary in the first place, the authors explained.
“Given the long natural history of prostate cancer and lead time associated with PSA-based screening, these males [aged 70 and older or with a high risk of death within 10 years] have a low likelihood of receiving any mortality benefit from continued screening,” the authors reported.
“Yet they face the potential harms of overdiagnosis, such as complications after prostate biopsy for a false-positive screening and psychological stress associated with a cancer diagnosis.”
Guideline Confusion, Habit, Among Reasons for Continued Screening
Among key reasons for the continued screening of men well into old age is the fluctuating history of the guidelines, Dr. Kensler said in an interview.
“There has been considerable variation in prostate cancer screening guidelines over time and across organizations that make screening recommendations, and this has inevitably led to some confusion among clinicians,” he explained.
However, the evidence of a lack of benefit over the age of 70 is strong enough that not performing PSA-based screening among men ages 70 or older is a Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measure for quality of care, he noted.
Nevertheless, “I think the trends we found in our analysis reflect that it is difficult for patients and providers to stop providing screening once they have already started it,” Dr. Kensler said.
Another motivator may be an inclination by clinicians to err on the side of caution, he added.
“For clinicians, although they may be aware of the guidelines, they may perhaps fear that they will not have offered screening to one of the older individuals who would have benefited from it even though they recognize that most would not,” Dr. Kensler noted.
Too often, however, such screenings “can lead to a cascade of other events that end up harming the patient without extending their lifespan,” he said.
Difficult Discussions
Complicating matters is the task of informing patients that due to their life expectancy, screening is considered to not likely be worthwhile — which may not be an easy discussion.
“For patients, hearing that they are at a stage of life where they may not benefit from screening is an unpleasant message to receive,” Dr. Kensler said.
“Having an in-depth conversation on this topic is also difficult given the many other health topics that clinicians and patients must cover during a visit.”
Ultimately, “these and other factors lead to inertia, where it is easier to stick to the status quo of continuing screening.”
The challenges underscore the need for improvements to the shared decision-making process to make sure that older men who do undergo prostrate screening will benefit, Dr. Kensler argued.
“If the guidelines are going to recommend shared decision-making, we need to provide tools to help patients and clinicians navigate these potentially difficult conversations.
Life Expectancy Uncertainties
Commenting on the research in an interview, Kyle Richards, MD, associate professor with the Department of Urology at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, in Madison, noted that, “while most urology experts agree that we should not screen for prostate cancer in men with less than 5-10 years life expectancy, the challenge is deciding which patients have a more limited life expectancy.”
Tools and calculators are available to try to calculate life expectancy, “but they can be cumbersome and difficult to incorporate into clinical practice,” he added.
Indeed, the difficulty in accurately estimating life expectancy is also a limitation of the study, he noted.
“The challenge with a study like this is it is very difficult to accurately estimate life expectancy,” he said. “It is easy to pick a cut point (i.e. age 70) but it is very difficult to calculate one’s life expectancy from survey data alone.”
Another limitation is that “screening PSA testing implies that the patient is not having any symptoms, and we do not know from this study if any of these men were getting PSA checks due to some urinary symptoms or other issues,” Dr. Richards added.
“So, while the study does raise some concern about screening PSA in older men, the data source makes it quite difficult to home in on this question.”
When it can be estimated, life expectancy can indeed provide a more useful guide in assessing the options if a patient is found to have prostate cancer, Dr. Richards noted.
“If a patient has a 5- to 10-year life expectancy, and they are diagnosed with a clinically significant prostate cancer, they absolutely may still benefit from treatment,” he said.
“If they have a clinically significant prostate cancer that is unrecognized, it could metastasize and cause symptoms or lead to death, as roughly 30,000 men die from prostate cancer each year in the USA.”
However, “if a patient has a limited life expectancy of less than 5 to 10 years, don’t screen for prostate cancer,” he advised. Proper guidance should furthermore be made loud and clear in guideline recommendations.
“I do think the USPSTF and AUA need to be the primary voices educating primary care and patients regarding prostate cancer screening,” Dr. Richards said.
“We need to be smart about whom to screen, when to screen, and how often to screen. And this message needs to be heard by the primary care providers that perform the screening.”
The study was supported by the Sandra and Edward Meyer Cancer Center and a grant from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health.
Dr. Kensler and Dr. Richards had no disclosures to report.