OT Get Screened - NFL PSA on Prostate Cancer - Cowher, Vermeil, Edwards Pep Talk

Submitted by markusr2007 on

October is around the corner, so you know that means - Lot of pink adornments in college football uniforms and helmets and shoes, and marketing to boot in order to fund the fight of breast cancer globally, and a worthy and important cause that all is.

But I love you guys too, and as someone who has lost loved ones too soon in life to prostate cancer, I ask you to please "Get Yourself Screened!" as these NFL coaches (Cowher, Vermeil and Edwards) implore:

http://www.prostatepeptalk.com/

Also, some of you lucky devils who live in the state of Michigan and near Ann Arbor apparently have had access to some of the earliest detection methods of prostate cancer available on the planet at the University of Michigan.  The Michigan Difference strikes again: http://www.mcancer.org/prostate-cancer/screening.

Check your fuzzy nuggets and your prostate as well. Save a life!

Do it!

 

 

MGoBoard
Football
University of Michigan
Get screened
prostate cancer detection

Wolverine4545

September 19th, 2016 at 9:06 PM ^

As an MGoDoc, although in surgery not primary care, I'd rather urge all of you to have a conversation with your doctor about being screened. PSA and DRE's aren't exactly needed these days and care should be individualized to each patient.

Joined: 12/03/2013

MGoPoints: 1685

Happy Gilmore

September 19th, 2016 at 9:57 PM ^

Agreed. Prostate cancer is extremely slow growing and the vast majority of people who have prostate cancer die with it, not from it. Regular PSA screening leads to an increase in treatment, many times in people who don't actually need it, and treatment is not without side effects - including permanent ED due to nerve damage during surgical resection.

Joined: 01/12/2011

MGoPoints: 2745

MichiganG

September 20th, 2016 at 9:20 AM ^

Prostate cancer is generally slow growing, except when it isn't.  The USPSTF recommendations take a population approach to the problem - but that means some people are sacrificed for the greater benefit of everyone else.  In the ideal world, people are still screened regularly, but they're also comfortable in not being treated if a slow-growing cancer is found.  In the real world, both doctors and patients are nervous about not treating a slow-growing cancer even though many men can either avoid treatment altogether or delay treatment (and its side effects) for a long period of time.

Joined: 05/20/2012

MGoPoints: 949

WolvinLA2

September 19th, 2016 at 9:07 PM ^

The funny thing about having a PSA on prostate cancer is that the test for prostate cancer is called PSA - prostate-specific antigen. I wonder if that's an intentional play on words or not.

Joined: 11/13/2009

MGoPoints: 58191

MGoBrewMom

September 19th, 2016 at 9:37 PM ^

yes. check those. I have a colleague at work who's 20 y.o. son did just that, and is now being treated for testicular cancer. 20 years old. I had no idea, but learned that is more common in young men than you would think. Lucky for him that it was caught early. it's spread a small amount, but he's told chances for full recovery are 90+%...but, yeah... get screened and do your self exams.

Joined: 08/13/2009

MGoPoints: 22969

xtramelanin

September 19th, 2016 at 9:45 PM ^

he was telling me about getting his prostate checked.  he was one of the toughest guys i knew and sneaky smart too - played MLB for K-state.  and men know what it means to get 'checked' down there.  no fun.  anyway, i figured if a guy like that could handle that, then so could i.  so all of you younger mgobloggers out there, put down your pride and make sure you are healthy down there.   the payoff is infinitely worth it. 

Joined: 12/09/2014

MGoPoints: 15439

slama

September 19th, 2016 at 10:30 PM ^

USPSTF Assessment Although the precise, long-term effect of PSA screening on prostate cancer–specific mortality remains uncertain, existing studies adequately demonstrate that the reduction in prostate cancer mortality after 10 to 14 years is, at most, very small, even for men in what seems to be the optimal age range of 55 to 69 years. There is no apparent reduction in all-cause mortality. In contrast, the harms associated with the diagnosis and treatment of screen-detected cancer are common, occur early, often persist, and include a small but real risk for premature death. Many more men in a screened population will experience the harms of screening and treatment of screen-detected disease than will experience the benefit. The inevitability of overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer as a result of screening means that many men will experience the adverse effects of diagnosis and treatment of a disease that would have remained asymptomatic throughout their lives. Assessing the balance of benefits and harms requires weighing a moderate to high probability of early and persistent harm from treatment against the very low probability of preventing a death from prostate cancer in the long term. The USPSTF concludes that there is moderate certainty that the benefits of PSA-based screening for prostate cancer do not outweigh the harms. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/Recommendat…

Joined: 05/05/2014

MGoPoints: 1974

JamieH

September 19th, 2016 at 11:44 PM ^

There are clearly a group of men who get aggressive prostate cancer for who screening and treatment will save their lives.  There are another group of men that fall into the "prostate cancer is inevitable if you live long enough" bucket, and which will have it growing slowly enough that the risk of surgery is actually MORE dangerous than the cancer itself.  These are generally men over 65 with the less aggressive forms of the cancer.

It's all very complicated.  My step-dad had the more aggressive form of the cancer and UM hospital took it out for him, so I'm definitely not anti-treatment. 
 

Joined: 09/05/2009

MGoPoints: 28331

claire

September 20th, 2016 at 9:34 PM ^

The USPSTF committee that made this determination did NOT have a urologist on its panel. PSA, for the most part, can be used incorrectly which leads to too many biopsies and an over diagnosis of prostate cancer. Everyone should have an initial PSA at age 35. If it's less than 1 repeat in 5 years. If it's greater than 1 repeat in one year. If there's a family history (first degree relative) consider a multiparameyric MRI or a biopsy. Fee for service healthcare incentivized unnecessary biopsies

Joined: 10/05/2008

MGoPoints: 623

champswest

September 19th, 2016 at 11:23 PM ^

any benefit to screening and treatment, while many suffer the adverse consequences of treatment. My view is that there is nothing wrong with the screening. If good test results give you peace of mind, I see no harm. But, I would advise against treatment due to the harmful side effects and lack of positive results.

Joined: 10/04/2009

MGoPoints: 25916

JamieH

September 19th, 2016 at 11:53 PM ^

note that this is certain types of prostate cancer.  There are aggressive types that you absolutely need to get treatment for.  But yes, certain non-aggressive types have a very high survival rate, and you are almost certain to die of something else first assuming you aren't 30 when you get it. 

Joined: 09/05/2009

MGoPoints: 28331

Old Econ Building

September 20th, 2016 at 12:56 PM ^

at age 53 I might respectfully disagree with a general statement against treatment. I chose to have surgery given my age, expected life span, family history, and the aggressiveness of my cancer. 

The main point to consider is that each man must evaluate his options carefully. I do agree that there, perhaps, is over treatment of prostate cancer. Current age and expected life span should play a big factor in the treatment decision and if to seek treatment at all. Had I been diagnosed at 63 or 73, I might have chosen a different treatment plan or at an advance age chosen to not treat it at all. Seek the counsel of many specialists before deciding on the right treatment plan for you and don't necessarily rush into a decision. Be well informed. I have no regrets. 

The screeing for prostate cancer if far from perfect still I believe tests along with family history can help the patient and the physician weight the risks vs. the benefits.

You do not want to ignore it. While it is mosly an old man's disease, 10 percent of all deaths due to prostate cancer are under 65 and 30 percent are under 75. 

Joined: 10/09/2014

MGoPoints: 71

KO Stradivarius

September 21st, 2016 at 3:14 PM ^

I have been screened on-going for over 10 yrs, since my late 30's.  My main point is that there are things that temporarily raise your PSA other than cancer (such as ejaculation).  Jokes aside, I feel that my doctors (at UM) did not fully inform me of these factors and ensure that my high rate of PSA increase wasn't due to natural causes.  I wasn't careful enough prior to the blood tests and therefore was confounding the data .  

I did have a biopsy (negative), my prostate became infected, PSA never really decreased back to where it had been, and I still experience worse urinary symptoms than before the biopsy.  I can't help but feel that I should have waited longer to make sure it was absolutely necessary.  

I think many doctors are "biposy-happy".  I almost had a 2nd biopsy years later due to a series of elevated PSA's again and their seemingly aggressive nature.  Against my better judgement I scheduled it but since the next opening was months away, I insisted on another PSA check a week prior to it.  I had nothing to lose except 12 holes in my prostate!  I made sure to avoid the MGoWife, treat my prostate right, and the PSA test result was sufficiently down so the procedure was cancelled.  I often wondered why I was the one to figure out this plan, and the doctors did not seem to care enough how to avoid a possible unnecessary biopsy.  Afterwards they commented they thought I had a good idea - what's wrong with this picture?  

I feel that a man should insist on lots of data under controlled circumstances before undergoing a biopsy or other treatment.  Also be sure to seek out second & third opinions if you don't feel comfortable.  The link in the OP to that UM info about the urine test looks promising.  Some non-invasive screening methods are really needed. 

    

Joined: 12/16/2014

MGoPoints: 30625