Literature DB >> 12505117

Why is prostate cancer screening so common when the evidence is so uncertain? A system without negative feedback.

David F Ransohoff1, Mary McNaughton Collins, Floyd J Fowler.   

Abstract

The degree of enthusiasm for prostate cancer screening seems high given the limited evidence of benefit and the well-documented harms of treatment that include impotence and incontinence. The purpose of this review is to understand the reasons for enthusiasm and positive reinforcement perceived in clinical decisions about whether to screen, whether to choose aggressive therapy for cancer, and in how to view adverse effects following therapy. We discuss a case of a man who must decide whether to undergo prostate-specific antigen screening and treatment to illustrate the kinds of reinforcement that may occur for each decision.Strong positive reinforcement for each decision would make screening and aggressive therapy appear to be successful and the correct decision even if prostate cancer screening and therapy were not beneficial. A physician is positively reinforced for recommending screening, regardless of the test result, because a negative result makes a patient grateful for reassurance and a positive result makes a patient grateful for early detection. A patient who is impotent and incontinent after a decision for curative treatment may attribute his survival to surgery and be grateful for having his cancer cured. Individual experience provides almost no negative feedback that early detection and aggressive treatment may not work. Although reinforcement operates similarly in other medical decisions, the example of prostate cancer provides insight into the strength of the forces at work because the personal harms, which are relatively common and dramatic, are readily discounted or explained away. Even if prostate cancer screening is eventually demonstrated to provide benefit for asymptomatic persons, it is important to appreciate the strength of forces that may act independently of benefit and reinforce decision makers' choices to be aggressive about screening and treatment. Interventions should be considered to temper possible overenthusiasm for screening and treatment.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12505117     DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9343(02)01235-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Med        ISSN: 0002-9343            Impact factor:   4.965


  32 in total

1.  How did the PSA system arise?

Authors:  Stewart Justman
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2010-07-07       Impact factor: 5.344

2.  Simulation optimization of PSA-threshold based prostate cancer screening policies.

Authors:  Daniel J Underwood; Jingyu Zhang; Brian T Denton; Nilay D Shah; Brant A Inman
Journal:  Health Care Manag Sci       Date:  2012-12

3.  Behind Closed Doors: What Happens when Patients and Providers Talk about Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening?: Survey of the Effects of a Community-Based Intervention.

Authors:  Lauren McCormack; Pamela Williams-Piehota; Carla Bann
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2009-09-01       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 4.  Clinically localised prostate cancer.

Authors:  Timothy J Wilt; Ian M Thompson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-11-25

5.  Factors influencing behavioral intention regarding prostate cancer screening among older African-American men.

Authors:  Marvella E Ford; Sally W Vernon; Suzanne L Havstad; Shirley A Thomas; Shawna D Davis
Journal:  J Natl Med Assoc       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 1.798

6.  Prevention and clinical complexity.

Authors:  Juan Gérvas; Iona Heath; Antonio Durán; Joan Gené
Journal:  Aten Primaria       Date:  2009-05-21       Impact factor: 1.137

7.  Variation in prostate-specific antigen screening in men aged 80 and older in fee-for-service Medicare.

Authors:  Julie Bynum; Yunjie Song; Elliott Fisher
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2010-03-22       Impact factor: 5.562

Review 8.  Screening for cancer: valuable or not?

Authors:  Frank L Meyskens
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 5.075

9.  Addressing overdiagnosis and overtreatment in cancer: a prescription for change.

Authors:  Laura J Esserman; Ian M Thompson; Brian Reid; Peter Nelson; David F Ransohoff; H Gilbert Welch; Shelley Hwang; Donald A Berry; Kenneth W Kinzler; William C Black; Mina Bissell; Howard Parnes; Sudhir Srivastava
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 41.316

10.  Factors prompting PSA-testing of asymptomatic men in a country with no guidelines: a national survey of general practitioners.

Authors:  Frances J Drummond; Anne-Elie Carsin; Linda Sharp; Harry Comber
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2009-01-12       Impact factor: 2.497

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.