American Cancer Society Stands By Cancer Screening Guidelines

Group has no plans to rethink testing for breast, prostate tumors, contrary to published report

Posted: October 21, 2009

By Amanda Gardner
HealthDay Reporter

WEDNESDAY, Oct. 21 (HealthDay News) -- The American Cancer Society says it is not currently rethinking its stance on cancer screening, as was widely reported Wednesday.

"We are not redoing or rethinking our guidelines at this time, nor are we going to restate our guidelines to emphasize the inadequacies of screening," said Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society.

The society continually revises its screening recommendations and issues new guidelines every year, usually in January. Moreover, current guidelines do not minimize any problems with screening, Lichtenfeld stated.

"We have always been talking about the limitations of screening," he said. "That's not really news."

For instance, the cancer society revised its prostate cancer screening guidelines several months ago to emphasize the fact that it does not recommend PSA screening for everyone but does recommend that men have "informed discussions with health-care professionals before embarking on a screening program," Lichtenfeld said.

Also, the cancer society has never maintained that mammography screening for breast cancer is perfect. "Mammography misses lesions. We know that we do find more lesions than might otherwise cause a woman harm, but that's something we've known and talked about for a long time," he said.

A report published Wednesday in The New York Times said that the American Cancer Society was planning to post a message on its Web site early next year delineating the risks of overtreatment resulting from excess screening. Responding to the article, Lichtenfeld said that "I'm not aware of that and if it was, in fact, happening, I would have knowledge of it."

In an official statement released Wednesday, the cancer society acknowledged that the "advantages of screening for some cancers have been overstated," but also added that "there are advantages, especially in the case of breast, colon and cervical cancers."

The statement, from the society's chief medical officer, Dr. Otis Brawley, said that the organization "stands by its screening guidelines" and that "women are encouraged to continue getting mammograms."

The apparent confusion stems largely from popular media reports that, in turn, seemed to have been spurred by an opinion piece published in the Oct. 21 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

A press release accompanying the JAMA article included quotes from Brawley, agreeing with the authors' conclusions.

According to the JAMA authors, from the University of California, San Francisco, and the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, increased screening rates for breast and prostate cancers have resulted in more diagnoses but have not translated into correspondingly lower death rates, incurring "potential tumor over-detection and over-treatment," the researchers wrote. Although mortality from cancer in general has decreased, the authors conceded, it's unclear how much of this is because of more screening.

Why might increased screening not translate into saved lives, as the two experts contend? Probably because more aggressive tumors are still not found in time to save the patient, according to one specialist.

A major issue facing oncologists, especially for breast and prostate cancers, is being able to separate the very bad cancers from the less dangerous tumors.

"The problem is, we have a hard time at this point differentiating cancers that are going to hurt someone and cancers that are not going to hurt someone in their lifetimes," said Dr. Jay Brooks, chairman of hematology/oncology at Ochsner Health System in Baton Rouge, La. "I think screening for various cancers is extremely helpful, and I do believe they have made major public health inroads. What we're trying to do is to fine-tune the screening techniques."

The stage of a person's life, not just the stage of the tumor, has to be taken into account, Brooks said.

"For the man in his 50s whose PSA [prostate-specific antigen] level rises abruptly, that's probably significant. But for the man in his 70s or 80s who has other diseases, probably PSA testing is not a good idea," Brooks added. "Same thing with mammography. If a woman is diagnosed in her 20s, that's probably a significant finding. However, if you're 80 and have dementia, that's probably not a good thing to be doing."

Cancer Treatment?

Cancer treatment has not changed in the last 60 years. The medieval treatment of cancer is not pretty, receives some results, and is more barbaric than medical. The pharmaceuticals spend their time and millions on cancer research and are better equipped, staffed, and experienced then funded cancer research centers that also spend millions but neither have resulted in a magic pill or cure. The researchers and centers receive large sums of money, drive expensive cars, and live in big homes while the number of cases increase and the 60 year old process continues.  Mental disease: “doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.”  The multi-billion dollar a year business for "cancer treatment" and "cancer research" would be in jeopardy if a cure were found.  The money spent on “Pink” merchandise and products are not used for cancer treatment, survivor support, or research so it must be a feel good about yourself expense.  The chemo drugs change but the conclusion, "some results" or "longer expectancies" are not a cure. The sad fact, cancer victims live a short and horrible life as a direct result of “Cancer Treatment”. Statistics are the true bleak black and white picture, not a “pink” bumper sticker, pink hair band, or pink shoes.  "False hope" becomes reality when it happens to a loved one or someone in the spot light.

Serious of TX @ Oct 23, 2009 23:39:12 PM

psa screening

At age 66, my PSA result had risen from 4 to 6, and I submitted to a painless biopsy that revealed an aggressive Gleason 8 tumor that normally results in death within 5 years. I was treated at UCSF with 2 years of hormone therapy and radiation. I have had no symptoms from my treatment (no incontinence or impotence) and after over 10 years my PSA is 0.3. I have required no further treatment other than routine PSA tests. I am now a very healthy 77 year old with an 8 year life expectancy.

But for the routine PSA testing and treatment, I believe I would be dead.

I was clearly informed over the risks associate with the various treatment options and chose radiation since there was a high likelihood of impotence in the event of surgery due to the location of my tumor. I declined watchful waiting due to the aggressive Gleason 8 tumor.

I am very happy that some medical statistician did not deprive me of my choice of PSA testing or treatment.

william coverdale of CA @ Oct 22, 2009 10:18:31 AM

cancer screening

my dear friends why are we fretting so much on cancer screening.500000 to 700000 people die sudden death mostly from cardiovascular diseases, yet we dont worry about it.probably a million or so die due to obesity.one hundred thousand or so from starvation and under nutrition,our wars have killed over 7000 and maimed 5 times that many.why are maimed for life.why are we fretting for 54000 or deaths from breast cancer and may be 30000 or so from prostate cancer. why cancer is a hot political, breast cancer even more political.let us focus on real issues, feed the poor house the poor ,provide heat and electric to the poor and then talk about this.god bless our nation.

dr joe idicula of FL @ Oct 22, 2009 10:12:29 AM

Add Your Thoughts
About You

advertisement

U.S. News Rankings & Research

Best Hospitals

See the best hospitals, and the best children's hospitals, in specialties from cancer to urology.

Best Health Plans

U.S. News and NCQA review over 700 health insurance plans in the Best Health Plan rankings.

Best Nursing Homes

The Best Nursing Homes rankings feature data on 15,000-plus homes. Search for one near you.

Diseases & Conditions

Get information on preventing, treating, and managing diseases and conditions. Centers:

advertisement

Sponsored Poll

What factor do you think is responsible for the majority of teen-driving crashes?

View Results

advertisement

Subscribe

U.S. News Digital Weekly

A weekly insider's guide to politics and policy — in a multimedia, digital format. 52 issues for $19.95!

U.S. News & World Report

6 months of U.S. News & World Report's print edition for only $15. Save up to 67% off the cover price!