Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Past Issues
    • Supplements
    • Article Type
  • Specialty
    • Articles by Specialty
  • CME/MOC
    • Articles
    • Calendar
  • Info For
    • Manuscript Submission
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Subscriptions
    • About CCJM
    • Contact Us
    • Media Kit
  • Conversations with Leaders
  • Conference Coverage
    • Kidney Week 2024
    • CHEST 2024
    • ACR Convergence 2023
    • Kidney Week 2023
    • ObesityWeek 2023
    • IDWeek 2023
    • CHEST 2023
    • MDS 2023
    • IAS 2023
    • ACP 2023
    • AAN 2023
    • ACC / WCC 2023
    • AAAAI Meeting 2023
    • ACR Convergence 2022
    • Kidney Week 2022
    • AIDS 2022
  • Other Publications
    • www.clevelandclinic.org

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine
  • Other Publications
    • www.clevelandclinic.org
  • Register
  • Log in
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Past Issues
    • Supplements
    • Article Type
  • Specialty
    • Articles by Specialty
  • CME/MOC
    • Articles
    • Calendar
  • Info For
    • Manuscript Submission
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Subscriptions
    • About CCJM
    • Contact Us
    • Media Kit
  • Conversations with Leaders
  • Conference Coverage
    • Kidney Week 2024
    • CHEST 2024
    • ACR Convergence 2023
    • Kidney Week 2023
    • ObesityWeek 2023
    • IDWeek 2023
    • CHEST 2023
    • MDS 2023
    • IAS 2023
    • ACP 2023
    • AAN 2023
    • ACC / WCC 2023
    • AAAAI Meeting 2023
    • ACR Convergence 2022
    • Kidney Week 2022
    • AIDS 2022
Departments

Prostate cancer screening, November 2018

David L. Keller, MD, FACP
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine December 2018, 85 (12) 908; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3949/ccjm.85c.12001
David L. Keller
Lomita, CA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

TO THE EDITOR: In their article on men’s health,1 Chaitoff and colleagues present the scenario of a 60-year-old patient, with no other history given, whose recent screening prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level was 5.1 ng/mL, and who asks his doctor:

  1. Should I have agreed to the screening?

  2. How effective is the screening?

  3. What are the next steps?

These questions are consistent with the patient having read the latest US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) report on PSA screening, which states: “Screening offers a small potential benefit of reducing the chance of death from prostate cancer in some men. However, many men will experience potential harms of screening, including false-positive results…”2

I would tell the patient that he can expect greater benefit from PSA screening than reported by the USPSTF simply by adhering to the screening protocol. Intention-to-treat analysis applied to the trial results diminished the apparent benefits of PSA screening by counting fatal prostate cancers experienced by nonadherent study participants as screening failures.3 In other words, screening works better in those who actually get screened!

The authors state1 that “in 2014, an estimated 172,258 men in the United States were diagnosed with prostate cancer, but only 28,343 men died of it.” Nevertheless, prostate cancer remains the second most common cause of cancer deaths in American men, after lung cancer.4 In addition to the reduction in prostate cancer-specific mortality with screening, patients should consider the reduction in morbidity from painful bone metastases and pathologic fractures, which are common in advanced prostate cancer.

A false-positive elevated PSA can be caused by reversible benign conditions, such as prostate infection or trauma, which can resolve over time, returning the PSA to its baseline level. Studies have demonstrated that simply repeating the PSA test a few weeks later will significantly reduce the number of false-positive PSA screening tests.5

Also, it is not optimal to screen for prostate cancer using a single PSA measurement. This patient’s PSA of 5.1 ng/mL cannot distinguish between chronic benign prostatic hyperplasia and a fast-growing but still curable malignancy. If the patient’s PSA had been tested annually and was known to be stable at its current level, a benign or indolent condition would be most likely, allowing for the possibility of continuing noninvasive observation. If his PSA was 1.1 ng/mL a year ago, and his PSA remains elevated when retested in a few weeks, the likelihood of malignancy would increase, increasing the yield of biopsy.

Lastly, consider false-negatives. A man with a PSA of 2.0 ng/mL would not have undergone biopsy in any of the trials, but if he had a history of several consecutive annual PSA levels less than 1.0 ng/mL, the doubling of his PSA during an interval less than or equal to 1 year could signal an early aggressive prostate cancer. Increases in PSA velocity can reveal the rapid proliferation of malignant prostate cells before the tumor is large enough to cross a static threshold PSA. We have zero data indicating how much benefit can be derived from the use of PSA velocity in this fashion. However, clinicians who carefully track serial PSA changes in each patient have anecdotes of success in early detection and cure of aggressive prostate cancers that would not have been detected by the trial protocols using fixed PSA thresholds. Until such trials are done, we can only tell patients that the ability to compute PSA velocity may be another source of benefit of annual screening of PSA.

  • Copyright © 2018 The Cleveland Clinic Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    1. Chaitoff A,
    2. Killeen TC,
    3. Nielsen C
    . Men’s health 2018: BPH, prostate cancer, erectile dysfunction, supplements. Cleve Clin J Med 2018; 85(11):871–880. doi:10.3949/ccjm.85a.18011
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. US Preventive Services Task Force
    . Prostate cancer: screening. May 2018. www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/UpdateSummaryFi-nal/prostate-cancer-screening1?ds=1&s=PSA. Accessed November 6, 2018.
  3. ↵
    1. Gupta SK
    . Intention-to-treat concept: a review. Perspect Clin Res 2011; 2(3):109–112. doi:10.4103/2229-3485.83221
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Cancer.Net
    . Prostate cancer: statistics. www.cancer.net/cancer-types/pros-tate-cancer/statistics. Accessed November 6, 2018.
  5. ↵
    1. Lavallée LT,
    2. Binette A,
    3. Witiuk K,
    4. et al
    . Reducing the harm of prostate cancer screening: repeated prostate-specific antigen testing. Mayo Clin Proc 2016; 91(1):17–22. doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2015.07.030
    OpenUrlCrossRef
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine: 85 (12)
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine
Vol. 85, Issue 12
1 Dec 2018
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Prostate cancer screening, November 2018
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Prostate cancer screening, November 2018
David L. Keller
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine Dec 2018, 85 (12) 908; DOI: 10.3949/ccjm.85c.12001

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Prostate cancer screening, November 2018
David L. Keller
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine Dec 2018, 85 (12) 908; DOI: 10.3949/ccjm.85c.12001
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Linkedin Share Button

Jump to section

  • Article
    • REFERENCES
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

Departments

  • Our Peer-Reviewers for 2023
  • When should we consider SGLT-2 inhibitors in patients with acute decompensated heart failure?
  • Our Peer-Reviewers For 2022
Show more Departments

Letters to the editor

  • In Reply: In defense of the anion gap
  • In defense of the anion gap
  • In Reply: Insomnia in older adults
Show more Letters to the editor

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Geriatrics
  • Men's Health
  • Oncology

Navigate

  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Supplements
  • Article Type
  • Specialty
  • CME/MOC Articles
  • CME/MOC Calendar
  • Media Kit

Authors & Reviewers

  • Manuscript Submission
  • Authors & Reviewers
  • Subscriptions
  • About CCJM
  • Contact Us
  • Cleveland Clinic Center for Continuing Education
  • Consult QD

Share your suggestions!

Copyright © 2025 The Cleveland Clinic Foundation. All rights reserved. The information provided is for educational purposes only. Use of this website is subject to the website terms of use and privacy policy. 

Powered by HighWire