Furthering the prostate cancer screening debate (prostate cancer specific mortality and associated risks)

Abstract

Screening for prostate cancer remains a contentious issue. As withother cancer screening programs, a key feature of the debate isverification of cancer-specific mortality reductions. Unfortunatelythe present evidence, two systematic reviews and six randomizedcontrolled trials, have reported conflicting results. Furthermore, halfof the studies are poor quality and the evidence is clouded by keyweaknesses, including poor adherence to screening in the interventionarm or high rates of screening in the control arm. In highquality studies of prostate cancer screening (particularly prostatespecificantigen), in which actual compliance was anticipated inthe study design, there is good evidence that prostate cancer mortalityis reduced. The numbers needed to screen are at least as goodas those of mammography for breast cancer and fecal occult bloodtesting for colo-rectal cancer. However, the risks associated withprostate cancer screening are considerable and must be weighedagainst the advantage of reduced cancer-specific mortality. Adverseevents include 70% rate of false positives, important risks associatedwith prostate biopsy, and the serious consequences of prostatecancer treatment. The best evidence demonstrates prostate cancerscreening will reduce prostate cancer mortality. It is time for thedebate to move beyond this issue, and begin a well-informed discussionon the remaining complex issues associated with prostatecancer screening and appropriate management.