Rethinking Shared Decision-Making in Prostate Cancer Screening

Kenneth Lin

Posted 2/28/12 on Common Sense Family Doctor 

Last October, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force provisionally recommended against screening for prostate cancerusing the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test, eliciting a variety of reactions from medical and patient advocacy groups. The New England Journal of Medicine published one of the most thoughtful responses by Mary McNaughton-Collins and Michael Barry, two physicians who have done a great deal of research on the psychological and physical harms related to false-positive tests, an all-too-common occurrence in men who receive periodic PSA testing. They respectfully disagreed with the USPSTF’s “D” (don’t do) rating for this preventive service, arguing that the rating should have instead been a “C” (don’t do routinely):

A grade C recommendation would allow the patient to be involved in the decision to skip or choose a PSA screening test, after a discussion with a primary care provider about the magnitude of the known harms and the potential for some benefit. The patient could then provide his perspective on how he views the trade-off. Weighing the pros and cons to make a decision about PSA screening is an individual process, and different well-informed men will make different decisions. A grade D recommendation removes the patient from the equation and puts the physician in the central position of discouraging use of the test. Uncertainty in medicine is more common than we usually let on, and the way to address uncertainty is to allow patients the central position in decision making. … We do not believe that anyone but the patient should decide whether the small and uncertain benefits of PSA screening are worth it.

In 2010, the American Cancer Society took a similar stance, recommending that men age 50 years or older make “informed choices” about whether or not to receive the PSA test after being provided with detailed information about the risks and benefits and tools to help them make the decision. On the surface, both of these recommendations seem more reasonable that the USPSTF’s. Rather than making a unilateral decision for every patient based on imperfect population-level evidence, why not let each patient make the choice for himself?

The answer is that primary care physicians have already been trying this approach for many years, and it does not work. Numerous studies have shown that no matter how much information men are given in any format, the vast majority still choose to receive the test, and most of them end up worse off because of that decision. In fact, as a new study concludes in the Archives of Internal Medicine, once prostate cancer is diagnosed via PSA testing, the men most likely to receive aggressive (“curative”) treatments are those who are least likely to need it – men who would have been better off not getting the test in the first place.

A case in point: in the same issue of the journal, an academic oncologist who exclusively cares for prostate cancer patients tells the story of his own concerning PSA test, prostate biopsy, and subsequent decision to undergo radical prostatectomy at age 56. Five years later, he is cancer-free, but has permanent right-sided weakness as the result of the surgery, which was in retrospect unnecessary given the limited spread and good prognosis of his tumor. He laments: “Even the most informed patient (me in this case) has difficulty making a truly informed decision.” And if a physician who spent decades caring for patients with prostate cancer has trouble making the right call, what hope is there for the rest of us?

Physician-researcher H. Gilbert Welch (author of Overdiagnosed,previously reviewed on this blog) recently challenged the consensus that informed decision-making is the best approach to PSA testing:

I worry that excessive fealty to informed decision-making in cancer screening may distract us from more important issues—like what is bothering patients right now. It may also lead physicians to abdicate our role as advisor—physicians simply transfer responsibility to their patients. And the problem appears to be asymmetric: we seem less inclined to recommend against than to recommend for. … Why are we so reluctant to make value judgments about things not to do to patients? Is it because we are so fearful of potential litigation? Is it that we have become so financially conflicted? Or is it that we fear being accused of caring about cost? Maybe clinicians need the Task Force to make the call for us. And, for PSA testing, they did. If I was pressed to get off the fence, it’s the call I would have made.

I couldn’t agree more. Shared decision-making in PSA screening is an attractive concept that in practice leads to more harm than good. The Task Force was right to recommend that it stop, and that we instead advise patients not to get the test.

About Brian Klepper

Brian Klepper is a health care analyst, commentator and a Principal in Health Value Direct.
This entry was posted in Analytics, Conflicts of Interest, Health Care Cost, Medical Management, Physicians, Policy/Law/Regulation and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Rethinking Shared Decision-Making in Prostate Cancer Screening

  1. Tom Emerick says:

    Thanks for covering this important topic.

    I told my doctor a few years ago to stop running PSA tests on me. When I looked at the facts, that’s where they led me. This is a personal example of “informed decision making”.

    I’ll likely die from something when I’m age 85 or so. I made a conscious decision to worry less about what particular disease will get me then and to concentrate on enjoying my remaining years more.

  2. RadhikaN says:

    I started this article thinking you were going to defend McNaughton-Collins and Barry’s rating and in my mind, I was formulating all the reasons they were pollyannaish about physician’s inclination to help even the most involved of us patients to arrive at better decisions about our health. But i am glad I didn’t have to articulate all the reasons because you did them so well.
    Some of us patients do not even know what it means to decide. I have been trying to help a friend who has abnormal bleeding decide on the right course of treatment for her. Despite sending her the info on the Foundation for Informed Decision Making, all I have gotten her to do so far is something I would not necessarily have recommended. She has gotten a “second-opinion” from another physician that concurs with the first that hysterectomy is the way to go. No other options have been explored but now that two independent physicians have said it, what more could there be to know? Another mutual friend had an ablation, so the friend with the abnormal bleeding brought it up with her physician. She has been told that if she wants to get ablation, she will need to have her tubes tied or take other drastic birth-control measures because any foetus that implants will likely to deformed. This to a woman undergoing menopause and with no intention of having a baby. How come normal birth control wouldn’t work on her? What am I missing?

    The USPSTF has done us a huge favor. Not only are some of us patients not ready, it is very obvious that many physicians are certainly not ready to be the imparters of good science and medicine.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s