mja.com.au | The Medical Journal of Australia

Home | Issues | MJA shop | MJA Careers | Contact | Topics | Search | RSS  | Login | Buy full access

Letters

Evidence-based uncertainty: recent trial results on prostate-specific antigen testing and prostate cancer mortality

Peter C Arnold
MJA 2010; 192 (2): 110

To the Editor: The general practitioners’ dilemma is acute. Women asking for mammography and/or testing for ovarian cancer; men asking for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing for prostate cancer. The debate, fuelled by uncertain knowledge, rages in the general medical journals,1,2 including contributions in the 17 August 2009 issue of the MJA.3,4

The PSA test is, of course, intimately associated with the name of its inventor, Thomas A Stamey. I am, therefore, somewhat surprised that neither of these recent MJA articles mentioned Stamey’s 2004 “recanting” of his proposed value of the test back in 1987: “current evidence from the last 10 years is convincing that the relationship between prostate cancer and serum PSA is tenuous at best, especially with serum PSA less than 10 ng/mL and perhaps even less than 22 ng/mL. This time is not the first we have had second thoughts regarding the usefulness of serum PSA in preoperatively reflecting prostate cancer”. He concludes: “any excuse to biopsy the prostate has an excellent, age dependent chance of being positive”.5

Perhaps the authors could tell your readers why they did not think that Stamey’s 20-year experience of PSA testing and his 2004 conclusions warranted a mention?

Peter C Arnold, Retired General Practitioner

Sydney, NSW.

parnoldATozemail.com.au

  1. Jørgensen KJ, Gøtzsche PC. Overdiagnosis in publicly organised mammography screening programmes: systematic review of incidence trends. BMJ 2009; 339: b2587. <PubMed>
  2. Brown PO, Palmer C. The preclinical natural history of serous ovarian cancer: defining the target for early detection. PLoS Med 2009; 6: e1000114. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000114.
  3. Smith DP, Banks E, Clements MS, et al. Evidence-based uncertainty: recent trial results on prostate-specific antigen testing and prostate cancer mortality [editorial]. Med J Aust 2009; 191: 199-200. <eMJA full text> <PubMed>
  4. Barratt AL, Stockler MR. Screening for prostate cancer: explaining new trial results and their implications to patients [viewpoint]. Med J Aust 2009; 191: 226-229. <eMJA full text> <PubMed>
  5. Stamey TA, Caldwell M, McNeal JE, et al. The prostate specific antigen era in the United States is over for prostate cancer: what happened in the last 20 years? J Urol 2004; 172: 1297-1301. <PubMed>

(Received 14 Aug 2009, accepted 13 Oct 2009)


David P Smith, Emily Banks, Mark S Clements, Robert A Gardiner and Bruce K Armstrong

In reply: The letter by Arnold highlights the practical dilemma facing busy doctors when communicating with patients about whether to screen for various cancers, prostate cancer in particular. There are no easy answers at present, although presentation of both sides of the argument regarding prostate cancer testing helps doctors and patients make a shared decision.1 We believe the following decision-aid show card, written in plain English, is an excellent resource to assist with this: <http://www.cancer.org.au/File/HealthProfessionals/GPprostateshowcard.pdf >.

David P Smith, Research Coordinator1Emily Banks, NHMRC Senior Research Fellow and Scientific Director of the 45 and Up Study2Mark S Clements, Research Fellow2Robert A Gardiner, Academic Urologist3,4Bruce K Armstrong, Professor of Public Health5

1 Cancer Epidemiology Research Unit, Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW.

2 National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT.

3 University of Queensland Centre for Clinical Research, Brisbane, QLD.

4 Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, QLD.

5 School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW.

dsmithATnswcc.org.au

  1. Steginga SK, Pinnock C, Jackson C, Gianduzzo T. Shared decision-making and informed choice for the early detection of prostate cancer in primary care. BJU Int 2005; 96: 1209-1210. <PubMed>

(Received 8 Oct 2009, accepted 13 Oct 2009)


Home | Issues | MJA shop | Terms of use | MJA Careers | More... | Contact | Topics | Search | RSS 

mja.com.au | The Medical Journal of Australia  

©The Medical Journal of Australia 2010 www.mja.com.au PRINT ISSN: 0025-729X ONLINE ISSN: 1326-5377