3,361,596 members
12,339,752 petition signatures
$17,571,785,510 diverted from Big Pharma
PSA Test Reduces Prostate Cancer Deaths By 40%
Back in November of last year Health Freedom alliance published the controversy surrounding “mammogate” At issue was how effective were yearly mammograms in saving the lives of women. The downside being cost, excessive radiation and false positives. Versus early detection. Now almost the same controversy is developing with “prostategate.”
One one side some doctors including the American Cancer Society are saying yearly prostate tests can produce false positives. They also cannot distinguish between slow growing cancers and rapidly growing tumors. The side effects of treatment in many elderly men is worse then the slow growing tumor. However on the other hand many doctors say
treatment has led to a 40 percent reduction in prostate cancer deaths since the mid-1990s, according to the National Cancer Institute. When it comes to the documented 40 percent effectiveness of PSA testing in preventing death from prostate cancer, neither the American Cancer Society nor the discoverer of the PSA protein, Richard Ablin, are telling the public the complete story.
“The American Cancer Society is a ‘false prophet’ when it comes to telling the truth about the effectiveness of the PSA test,” said ZERO’s CEO Skip Lockwood. “Dr. Otis Brawley disregards scientific data about the value of the PSA test in saving lives. In fact, his views at a recent medical conference were vigorously challenged by physicians and researchers in attendance.”
“Dr. Brawley seems more concerned about sex than saving lives. He’s obsessed with the side effects of treatment rather than a solution for saving lives. He wants you to trust him instead of the 30,000 urologists in the U.S. and gamble you’re not among the thousands of men who die each year with aggressive prostate cancer tumors,” said Lockwood.
Lockwood acknowledges that the PSA test, like the mammogram, is not perfect.
“No one disputes that the PSA test cannot distinguish slow-growing tumors from rapidly growing ones, yet no one disputes that the PSA test is still the best tool available for early diagnosis and prompt treatment for prostate cancer.
“The long-term solution is to discover a new biomarker for prostate cancer without false positives or negatives and one that determines who has a life-threatening disease and who doesn’t.
One of the nation’s leading experts on prostate cancer, Dr. William J. Catalona of Northwestern University, commented, “Although the PSA test is not perfect, it is effective in identifying men at high risk for prostate cancer and for detecting it early.”
The PSA test, the most prevalent method in use today for prostate cancer, has saved thousands of lives. The PSA test and advances in treatment have led to a 40 percent reduction in prostate cancer deaths since the mid-1990s, according to the National Cancer Institute. Because of the PSA test, 90 percent of all prostate cancers are now discovered before they spread outside the gland, according to the American Cancer Society’s own data.
Dr. Patrick C. Walsh, distinguished professor of urology at Johns Hopkins University noted, “Because prostate cancer produces no symptoms until it’s too far advanced to cure, as appropriate, men should have a PSA test and examination. Until an alternative exists, prostate cancer testing is the best option we have to allow men to make an informed decision.”
Despite misleading claims by the ACS, the value of early detection through PSA testing is supported by more than a dozen leading U.S. organizations.
These include the American Urological Association, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Prostate Cancer Foundation, Prostate Cancer Research Institute, Malecare Prostate Cancer Support, Men’s Health Network, National Alliance of State Prostate Cancer Coalitions, Prostate Cancer International, Prostate Conditions Education Council, Prostate Health Education Network, The Prostate Net, Us TOO International Prostate Cancer Education and Support Network, and Women Against Prostate Cancer.
This is not the first time that the ACS has been sharply challenged. Claims that their views are based on “scientific evidence” were disputed as recently as late last year (and more recently, at the 2010 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium held last week).
ACS became embroiled in a firestorm of controversy last October by seeking to change its guidelines that women did not need an annual mammogram until age 50, instead of 40. ACS quickly backed off after an outcry from the public and health and government officials.
“The only difference between the PSA test and mammograms is there aren’t millions of men who will stand up to the claims being peddled by Brawley and the American Cancer Society,” Lockwood said.
Contrary to ACS claims, medical data suggest mammograms and PSA testing are effective. Based on data by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), mammography screening has led to a 15 percent reduction in breast cancer deaths. USPSTF also references an ongoing screening study where early detection (using the PSA test) has so far reduced prostate cancer deaths by 20 percent.
“This concerted agenda by ACS and Mr. Ablin, both in their timing and their message, purposely fails to disclose all of the facts about PSA testing. Mr. Ablin in particular should be pleased that his discovery of PSA has led to a 40 percent reduction in prostate cancer deaths.”
Similarities between breast and prostate cancer data in the U.S. are striking. Each is the most frequently diagnosed noncutaneous cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death for their respective gender. In 2009, new cases of each cancer were at about 194,000. One in six men is struck with prostate cancer annually; for breast cancer, it’s one in eight women.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/182053.php
Lack of Urgency, Not PSA, is the Problem
I remain grateful to Dr. Ablin for his PSA discovery. I recently learned my PSA nearly doubled within a year’s time. With no indication of other prostate problems, my next step is a needle biopsy. Yes, I feel stress. But I can’t imagine how I would feel if I were to learn a year from now that I had an aggressive variety of prostate cancer that metastasized without early detection.
In my work, I have met countless survivors and other men who are fighting advanced metastatic disease. Others, as young as 40, have lost their battles because their cancer wasn’t diagnosed earlier. If my biopsy is clear, I will continue to be screened.
More than 27,000 U.S. men continue to die each year from this disease. Rather than a wholesale damnation of the PSA test, what’s needed now is accelerated government and private investment in finding a better, cancer-specific diagnostic so we can over-treat less and cure those patients who need it most.
Dan Zenka
Vice President
Prostate Cancer Foundation
[Reply]
After discovering that my PSA was 8.9, my urologist insisted upon a biopsy. Immediately after the biopsy, the PSA jumped to more than 14, which seemed to verify the claims that any disturbance merely aggravates the cancer. It was also pronounced as seriously aggressive.
After my mother, father, and sister all died following traditional medical treatment for cancer, I elected to follow alternative solutions. It is now almost six years later and there is no trace of cancer or any of the “medical side effects” of radiation or surgery. According to my urologist, I should be dead because I did not follow his instructions.
I have used color doppler sonograms to show that there is zero blood flow to where the cancer used to be. I will take this test over the biopsy every time, and I can’t help but wonder why traditional doctors don’t follow this non-invasive test, which is also significantly more accurate in locating the cancer.
[Reply]
Patrick Reply:
March 14th, 2010 at 9:42 am
Charlie, I would like more information on your alternative solutions.
This is needed by people in a similar situation to yours. Thanks.
[Reply]
Bill Mullen Reply:
March 14th, 2010 at 10:22 am
I am curious as to what the “Alternative Solutions” were.
[Reply]
Bill Risano Reply:
March 15th, 2010 at 6:45 pm
I have had prostate cancer for 18 years using a variety of alternative methods to keep it in check, including macrobiotics, prostasol, pc-spes, etc. However, the cancer has become aggressive and I have to find something else to treat it with. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
[Reply]
As an advocate for health freedom, I was surprised to see you supporting invasive tests like the mammogram and ineffective ones like the PSA.
Is mammography an effective tool for detecting tumors? Some critics say no. In a Swedish study of 60,000 women, 70 percent of the mammographically detected tumors weren’t tumors at all. These “false positives” aren’t just financial and emotional strains, they may also lead to many unnecessary and invasive biopsies. In fact, 70 to 80 percent of all positive mammograms do not, upon biopsy, show any presence of cancer.
At the same time, mammograms also have a high rate of missed tumors, or “false negatives.” Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, in his book, The Politics Of Cancer, claims that in women ages 40 to 49, one in four instances of cancer is missed at each mammography. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) puts the false negative rate even higher at 40 percent among women ages 40-49. National Institutes of Health spokespeople also admit that mammograms miss 10 percent of malignant tumors in women over 50. Researchers have found that breast tissue is denser among younger women, making it difficult to detect tumors. For this reason, false negatives are twice as likely to occur in premenopausal mammograms.
Radiation Risks
Many critics of mammography cite the hazardous health effects of radiation. In 1976, the controversy over radiation and mammography reached a saturation point. At that time mammographic technology delivered five to 10 rads (radiation-absorbed doses) per screening, as compared to 1 rad in current screening methods. In women between the ages of 35 and 50, each rad of exposure increased the risk of breast cancer by one percent, according to Dr. Frank Rauscher, then-director of the NCI.
According to Russell L. Blaylock, MD, one estimate is that annual radiological breast exams increase the risk of breast cancer by two percent a year. So over 10 years the risk will have increased 20 percent. In the 1960s and 70s, women, even those who received 10 screenings a year, were never told the risk they faced from exposure. In the midst of the 1976 radiation debate, Kodak, a major manufacturer of mammography film, took out full-page ads in scientific journals entitled About breast cancer and X-rays: A hopeful message from industry on a sober topic.
Despite better technology and decreased doses of radiation, scientists still claim mammography is a substantial risk. Dr. John W. Gofman, an authority on the health effects of ionizing radiation, estimates that 75 percent of breast cancer could be prevented by avoiding or minimizing exposure to the ionizing radiation. This includes mammography, x-rays and other medical and dental sources.
Since mammographic screening was introduced, the incidence of a form of breast cancer called ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) has increased by 328 percent. Two hundred percent of this increase is allegedly due to mammography. In addition to harmful radiation, mammography may also help spread existing cancer cells due to the considerable pressure placed on the woman’s breast during the procedure. According to some health practitioners, this compression could cause existing cancer cells to metastasize from the breast tissue.
Cancer research has also found a gene, called oncogene AC, that is extremely sensitive to even small doses of radiation. A significant percentage of women in the United States have this gene, which could increase their risk of mammography-induced cancer. They estimate that 10,000 A-T carriers will die of breast cancer this year due to mammography.
The risk of radiation is apparently higher among younger women. The NCI released evidence that, among women under 35, mammography could cause 75 cases of breast cancer for every 15 it identifies. Another Canadian study found a 52 percent increase in breast cancer mortality in young women given annual mammograms. Dr. Samuel Epstein also claims that pregnant women exposed to radiation could endanger their fetus. He advises against mammography during pregnancy because “the future risks of leukemia to your unborn child, not to mention birth defects, are just not worth it.” Similarly, studies reveal that children exposed to radiation are more likely to develop breast cancer as adults.
New Screening Technologies
While screening is an important step in fighting breast cancer, many researchers are looking for alternatives to mammography. Burton Goldberg totes the safety and accuracy of new thermography technologies. Able to detect cancers at a minute physical stage of development, thermography does not use x-rays, nor is there any compression of the breast. Also important, new thermography technologies do not lose effectiveness with dense breast tissue, decreasing the chances of false-negative results.
Some doctors are now offering digital mammograms. Digital mammography is a mammography system in which x-ray film is replaced by solid-state detectors that convert x-rays into electric signals. Though radiation is still used, digital mammography requires a much smaller dose. The electrical signals are used to produce images that can be electronically manipulated; a physician can zoom in, magnify and optimize different parts of breast tissue without having to take an additional image.
AS for PSA testing, I will refer you to a non-invasive urine assay test called the PCA 3 which is 95% accurate and 98% if done a 2nd time as compared to 30% for PSA. The advent of molecular diagnostics has brought the promise of a specific test for prostate cancer PC, the urinary PCA3 gene test. Widespread testing with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) has increased the numbers of prostate biopsies to perhaps one million annually in the U.S. However, serum PSA levels are not specific for PC. Thus, of approximately four men with elevated PSA levels who undergo prostate biopsies, only one will be found to have the disease. Moreover, some cancers in men with “normal” PSA levels escape detection with the PSA measurement. Another marker is needed, and the urinary PCA3 gene test may well be that marker. Early studies indicate this new marker has a much greater degree of PC specificity than PSA testing.
Knowledge is power and I hope that you run articles on both the PCA 3 and Thermography diagnostic options in your future newsletters. It is not always productive to downtrod the establishment and leave healthy solutions in its wake.
Thanks for you service, but it could be alittle more balanced I believe.
[Reply]