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

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.

[1]  J. Cerhan,et al.  Prostate Cancer Trends 1973-1995, SEER Program National Cancer Institute. , 1999 .

[2]  C G Chute,et al.  Incidence of prostate cancer diagnosis in the eras before and after serum prostate-specific antigen testing. , 1995, JAMA.

[3]  J. Goodwin Geriatrics and the limits of modern medicine. , 1999, The New England journal of medicine.

[4]  B A Miller,et al.  The role of increasing detection in the rising incidence of prostate cancer. , 1995, JAMA.

[5]  A. Zietman,et al.  Comparison of recommendations by urologists and radiation oncologists for treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. , 2000, JAMA.

[6]  R A Stephenson,et al.  Health outcomes after prostatectomy or radiotherapy for prostate cancer: results from the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. , 2000, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[7]  J. Richie,et al.  Patient-reported impotence and incontinence after nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. , 1997, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[8]  David Haber,et al.  Guide to clinical preventive services: a challenge to physician resourcefulness , 1993 .

[9]  D. Sulmasy,et al.  What should men know about prostate-specific antigen screening before giving informed consent? , 1998, The American journal of medicine.

[10]  Campbell Gd,et al.  American College of Physicians , 1974, Definitions.

[11]  Lisa M. Schwartz,et al.  The U.S. Postal Service and cancer screening--stamps of approval? , 1999, The New England journal of medicine.

[12]  M. Owings,et al.  Detailed diagnoses and procedures, National Hospital Discharge Survey, 1997. , 1999, Vital and health statistics. Series 13, Data from the National Health Survey.

[13]  J. Oesterling,et al.  Prostate cancer screening and beliefs about treatment efficacy: a national survey of primary care physicians and urologists. , 1998, The American journal of medicine.

[14]  R. Volk,et al.  A randomized controlled trial of shared decision making for prostate cancer screening. , 1999, Archives of family medicine.

[15]  Roberts Rg,et al.  PSA screening for asymptomatic prostate cancer: truth in advertising. , 1993 .

[16]  Louis R Kavoussi,et al.  Effect of patient age on early detection of prostate cancer with serum prostate-specific antigen and digital rectal examination. , 1993, Urology.

[17]  M. Barry,et al.  Patient-re ported complications and follow-up treatment after radical prostatectomy , 1993 .

[18]  M. Barry,et al.  Outcomes of external-beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer: a study of Medicare beneficiaries in three surveillance, epidemiology, and end results areas. , 1996, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[19]  Juni Palmgren,et al.  A randomized trial comparing radical prostatectomy with watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. , 2002, The New England journal of medicine.

[20]  M. Barry,et al.  Involving patients in medical decisions: how can physicians do better? , 1999, JAMA.

[21]  R A Stephenson,et al.  Urinary and sexual function after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. , 2000, JAMA.

[22]  Christopher Coley,et al.  CLINICAL GUIDELINE: PART 1: Early Detection of Prostate Cancer: Part I , 1997, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[23]  M. Barry,et al.  Effect of radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer on patient quality of life: results from a Medicare survey. , 1995, Urology.

[24]  CONTROVERSY IN THE DETECTION OF DISEASE , 1975, The Lancet.

[25]  P. Scardino,et al.  Early detection of prostate cancer. , 1989, The Urologic clinics of North America.

[26]  J. Schorling,et al.  The impact of informed consent on patient interest in prostate-specific antigen screening. , 1996, Archives of internal medicine.

[27]  Taylor Murray,et al.  Cancer statistics, 2000 , 2000, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.