Running head: ARTICLE REVIEW

Screening for Prostate Cancer Article Review

Name
Institution

ARTICLE REVIEW

2
Screening for Prostate Cancer

The United States Preventive Service Task Force (USPSTF) released a draft in October
2011 recommending against regular screening for prostate cancer in men of all ages. The article
which was presented by Dr. Moyer, on behalf of the US task force, men without symptoms are
advised against undergoing a routine prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood tests meant to screen
for prostate cancer. This report comes at a time when prostate cancer is being determined to be
the leading type of cancer infection in men after skin cancer. The task force is an independent
body of medical experts, authorized by the Congress to test and offer recommendations about
preventive services for patients within the nation.
This proposal was based on a harm-benefit analysis using independent randomized
clinical trials on screening and treatment. The team of experts established that based on current
evidence, the potential harms posed by PSA screening massively outweighs their expected
benefits and should not be used. The task force has however recognized that some patients will
continue requesting this screening method and some doctors too, will continue offering it. They
have encouraged such parties always to make informed decisions based on the conditions at hand
and through an understanding of what is at stake.
In this study, the researchers hypothesized that the primary aim of screening prostate
cancer was to reduce related deaths, but were disappointed by the small number of survivors of
this type of cancer, 10 to 14 years after screening. The PSA tests were also found to be prone to
producing false-positive results that, in many cases, leads to more confirmative testing including
biopsies, which are linked with dire side effects. Prostate cancer is also known always to
metastasize slowly that persons who have it detected during screening might never even need
any medications. The treatment even if required, can itself often cause unpleasant and lasting

ARTICLE REVIEW

side-effects. Another problem that was associated with prostate cancer screening in this
investigation was that it could not distinguish between lethal and indolent prostate cancer, and
have resulted in active treatment for kinds of infections.
The research revealed that on average, nearly 90% of PSA-detected prostate cancer
patients go to surgery, home therapy and radiation treatments. Of these, up to 5 in 1000 patients
dies within the first month of surgery, and another 30% develops serious lasting side effects such
as erectile dysfunction, urinary incontinence, and bowel dysfunction. These statistics only serves
to illustrate how ineffective these treatments can be in improving the cancer patients prognosis.
Hormone therapies were also linked with erectile dysfunctions, hot flashes, and breast
enlargement.
It should be noted that different scientists have expressed different opinions concerning
this study with some disagreeing the above recommendations. William Catalona in an
accompanying editorial believed that the task force underestimated the benefits of prostate
cancer screening and blatantly overestimated it harms (Catalona, 2012). He also alleged that the
trials on which the task force doctors based their recommendations were flawed. Catalona went
ahead to recommend that caregivers should review the said evidence for themselves and make
appropriate decisions based on their analyses. Clearly, this suggestion is quite important since it
is among the recommendations advanced the US task force.

ARTICLE REVIEW

4
References

Moyer, V. A. (2012). Screening for prostate cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force
recommendation statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 157(2), 120-134.
Catalona, W. J., D'Amico, A. V., Fitzgibbons, W. F., Kosoko-Lasaki, O., Leslie, S. W., Lynch, H.
T., ... & Walsh, P. C. (2012). What the US Preventive Services Task Force missed in its
prostate cancer screening recommendation. Annals of internal medicine, 157(2), 137-138.