Biopsy, Not PSA, Leads to Prostate Cancer

BY MARK SCHOLZ, MD

Prostate cancer is way over treated, and the problem starts with over diagnosis.  Once men are diagnosed, the fear of cancer naturally drives them toward radical treatment. In 2011 the US Preventive Services Task Force intervened, trying to stop overtreatment, argued that PSA testing causes more harm than good.

Some have questioned the expertise of the panel because of the lack of representation by urologists, radiation therapists or medical oncologists --the types of doctors usually responsible for treating prostate cancer.  Actually, the credentials of the panel constituents appear entirely appropriate to comment on screening, because this is an area of medicine usually handled by primary care doctors.  The panel members consisted of twelve MD’s and four PhD’s trained in primary care, public health and statistics.

The Task Force agrees that PSA screening may save lives. Their judgment, however, was that too few lives are saved to justify thousands of men getting unnecessary radical treatment. One statistic indicates that a thousand men must be screened to save one life within the next 12 years.

Personally, I agree with the panel in regards to over diagnosis is a root cause of over treatment. However, simply discarding PSA is an oversimplification. PSA can detect a variety of problems infection and benign prostate enlargement. Actually, the majority of men with elevated PSA, don’t have prostate cancer.

No, the real problem is after a PSA test rises. Every year, a million men are advised to have a dozen, large-bore needles jabbed into their rectums “Just to be sure there is no cancer.”  Such behavior sounds ridiculous, but really, it is just the survival instinct in action. People will do practically anything when they fear for their lives.

So if not a biopsy to evaluate an elevated PSA, what’s next?

First, the fear must be faced. Ralph Waldo Emerson says “Knowledge is the antidote to fear.” So let’s look at some basic facts:

• One out of 38 men die of prostate cancer
• One out of seven men are diagnosed with prostate cancer
• In men who are “diagnosed”
  • Five-year survival is 100%
  • Ten-year survival is 99%
  • Fifteen-year survival is 94%
    

Considering it is cancer, survival rates are great! At least these numbers should overcome any urge to rush. Clearly there is plenty of time is to study and learn more. Confusion arises because a minority of prostate cancers can indeed be dangerous. Not as dangerous as lung or pancreas cancer which kill within months. However, demise from prostate cancer certainly qualifies as “dangerous,” even if it is rather infrequent and much postponed.

These statistics reveal something else that is quite useful. Prostate management issues are of long-range nature, like saving for college or for retirement. Just as expert financial planners are limited in the ability to make predictions about economic activity ten years in the future, doctors should be equally humble in their pronouncements about the future of prostate cancer. We don’t know for sure, but we strongly suspect there will be substantial breakthroughs in the diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer in the next ten years.

For the short term, I think the best way to proceed is with imaging the prostate with a 3Tmulti-parametric MRI or color Doppler ultrasound. Scans are about as accurate as a random biopsy for detecting aggressive cancers and they usually fail to detect the harmless low grade types, which is a good thing. However, if there is a worrisome abnormality, a targeted biopsy with just a couple cores is needed.

Over-diagnosis and over-treatment is not due to PSA. It’s the misguided policy of rushing into an immediate random biopsy whenever there is a slight elevation.  .The random biopsy procedure should be abandoned.  PSA abnormalities should be evaluated with prostate imaging A targeted biopsy can be considered in men who have a distinct abnormality detected by imaging.    

Let the Buyer Beware

BY MARK SCHOLZ, MD

It’s time to change our preconceptions about prostate cancer and “reboot” the way we think about what typically is a non-life-threatening disease. Ever since the FDA first approved PSA testing in 1987, prostate cancer has grown into an aggressive multibillion dollar industry. Marketing hype has created the impression that treatments like Proton therapy and robotic surgery are universally desirable, even though well-informed patients know this is hardly the case.  How did the prostate cancer world deviate so far off the originally intended tract of helping patients? And what can be done to set things straight?

Ten years ago the experts believed that immediate curative treatment was needed for every man with prostate cancer.  Today, after 20 years of vigorously detecting and treating every case of prostate cancer, it has become clear that almost half of the 230,000 men diagnosed every year are undergoing radical treatment for a cancer that is incapable of metastasizing.  Now it’s time for the medical community to come to grips with the fact that over a million men in the United States are living with impotence and incontinence for no justifiable reason. This is a disaster of gargantuan proportions.

Shockingly, even though we can now readily identify these harmless cancers, the problem of rampant overtreatment continues. In 2015 another 50,000 men will undergo unnecessary radical treatment. The medical industrial complex that has been gaining momentum for 25 years refuses to confess its tragic errors.  The huge investments in enormously expensive medical equipment need to be paid off.  No one is willing to accept responsibility, make apologies or confess wrongdoing for all the overtreatment.  The existing system is entrenched and the doctors are too comfortable with the status quo.

Reversing the momentum of twenty-five years of recommending unnecessary radical treatments is going to require the patients to protect themselves.  They need to become far more medically sophisticated consumers.  Five years ago, Ralph Blum and I fired the first salvo by writing Invasion of the Prostate Snatchers: No More Unnecessary Biopsies, Radical Treatment or Loss of Sexual Potency. In our book, we attempted to defang the poisonous and fear-inducing word cancer by renaming the low-risk type that does not metastasize “The UnCancer.”  Our book has been helpful at revamping the gross misconception that every prostate cancer is potentially deadly.  Invasion provides an excellent introduction to men with newly-diagnosed cancer by presenting the important concept that prostate cancer comes in three broad types: low, intermediate and high-risk.  

One of the important themes introduced by Invasion is a healthy mistrust of physician motives. For protection against patients receiving the wrong treatment, Invasion argues strongly for patient empowerment through education. The term, “prostate cancer” is merely an umbrella term for a broad spectrum of illnesses that behave very differently. The book simplifies the treatment decision making process by clearly identifying the three major subtypes of prostate cancer, low, intermediate and high-risk.  Once patients have gained an accurate understanding of where they fit into this individualized schema, an informed treatment decision can be made.  As a medical oncologist, rather than a surgeon, the information provided in the book is unbiased with clear presentation of all the risks and benefits associated with all the different treatments that are available.

In an era now past, physicians were trained to put their patient’s interests ahead of their own.  Today, patients need to adopt defensive tactics that are realistic about how prostate cancer care has become a highly lucrative business. The patient who assumes that their counseling physician represents his best interests, is on the cusp of making a dangerous mistake. Bluntly, the prostate cancer world has evolved into a sophisticated and well-oiled business and the buyer better be on guard.   

A Midlife Crisis Avoided

BY MARK SCHOLZ, MD

Building up a medical practice and getting a late start with a family, my midlife crisis was delayed past the usual occurrence for men in their early 40s.  However, by the time I hit 50, self-questioning was starting to surface. My life had meaningful pursuits but it was time to take a deep breath and do the traditional life inventory of the “mid-years,” to reassess my goals for the last third of my existence here on planet earth.

After reflection, I realized that I really didn’t have any great ideas to reinvigorate my passion for the last lap. I couldn’t sell my wife on the idea of buying a Lamborghini (I already owned a small boat).  I didn’t have any specific desire to travel.  I had given up on golf due to a terrible and uncorrectable slice.  I have never been successful playing the stock market.  All these considerations were going through my head about ten years ago.  Now ten years later, I turned 60 and I feel revitalized and reinvigorated.  So what turned things around?  

Many of you have come to know Ralph, my coauthor in the Snatchers Blog. He is as a sensible dispenser of advice and knowledge about life and about prostate cancer.  I first met Ralph almost fifteen years ago, first as a patient, subsequently as a writing teacher and now as a writing partner. As I reflect back over the years that we have worked together I am convinced that its Ralph who spared me from my mid-life crisis.  Don’t get me wrong, I have a lovely family.  My wife Juliet is a bulwark of truth.  My children are delightfully sensible, talented and hard-working. I am also blessed with an amazing medical practice with wonderful coworkers and extra-special patients.

Even so, visiting with a dozen men a day, five days a week, year after year, decade after decade can wear you down.  Getting paid less and less every year while the work load steadily increases is hardly inspiring either.  A midlife crisis was in the wings and I had no idea how my passion for the medical profession could be restored.  So back in 2005, I was looking for a new challenge when Ralph first approached me to write a book . I even agreed after he told me the zany title, “Invasion of the Prostate Snatchers.”

Fortunately, when Ralph invited me to be a cowriter, he didn’t give a second thought to the paucity of writing skills.  (Ralph has so much confidence in his own writing skills he believes he could train a monkey to write). Over the next four years we clashed on many occasions. Considering that English was my worst subject in school I have to give myself some credit for having the courage to accept his proposal.

Back then I had little interest I had in developing the craft of writing.  Writing is hard to do.  In addition, with limited free time in a busy medical practice, it’s no surprise that developing writing skills was a low priority to me.  But I was also starting to get upset about the injustice of so many men’s sexual identities being robbed by unnecessary surgery.  The dawning realization, that men, rather than being helped by surgery are actually being tremendously harmed, is what motivated me to finally confront the painful task of developing some writing skills so I could convey my observations to the naïve and unsuspecting patients. Thank God I had Ralph to tutor me along through this long and arduous journey.

Learning to write about topics that matter to me (such as saving men from the loss their sexual identity) has saved me from the “meaningless” philosophical wandering that characterizes a midlife crisis.  And as I get older and further polish my writing skills, I have enjoyed even more satisfaction by helping men to avoid numerous medical pitfalls.  For example, in my next blog I’ll be exposing another incredibly repugnant policy—men on Active Surveillance who have 12 large needles plunged through their rectal wall into the prostate gland every year. Yikes!

In the meantime, let me express my genuine appreciation to Ralph for having the patience and skill to draw me down this totally unexpected pathway.  At this point I am happy to report that I see no hint of an existential crisis looming on the horizon.     

The Premature Biopsy Blues

BY RALPH BLUM

As I have said many times I am no fan of biopsies, but to most urologists, an elevated PSA calls for an immediate biopsy. A majority of urology practices rush men into biopsy despite the risks and discomfort involved, and despite the fact that there are other, far less invasive indicators to help determine what is going on in the prostate before doing a biopsy. If these indicators point to the presence of an aggressive cancer, submitting to a biopsy to get further information is appropriate. But in most cases, it is not appropriate, and almost inevitably gets you a first class ticket on the Overtreatment Express.

Prostate cancer is different from other cancers and, in a majority of cases, far less malignant. Accumulating studies show that approximately 30% of men in their fifties, and as many as 70% of eighty-year-old men, harbor microscopic amounts of the disease. In fact, in the opinion of one well-known urologist, "If you are over seventy, and you don't have prostate cancer, chances are you're a woman."

Yet despite the fact that so many men have it, less than 3% of men in the U.S. die from it, and the mortality rate is dropping every year.

So if your PSA is elevated, take a deep breath and don't panic. Rather than triggering an immediate biopsy, an elevated PSA should set a risk assessment process in motion. More than half the biopsies in this country are done for evaluation of an elevated PSA coming from BPH—an enlarged prostate. And there are various other non-cancerous causes of an elevated PSA. So check them out and repeat the test. Still elevated? Insist on having an OPKO-4k blood test. Studies show that the OPKO-4K can not only demonstrate the presence or absence of cancer, it gives a readout on the likelihood of higher-grade cancer, the kind of cancer that should be treated rather than watched.

Some major cancer centers use 3-Tesla, multi-parametric MRI as a diagnostic tool. Also to be considered is another form of imaging—color Doppler ultrasound—that is comparable in quality to MP-MRI, is easier to perform, takes less time, can be done in the doctor's office. Color Doppler provides higher resolution images than the usual gray-scale ultrasound machines, and also shows areas of increased blood flow associated with higher-grade or more aggressive prostate cancers. If a suspicious lesion is detected a targeted rather than a random biopsy can be performed.

PSA is a remarkable tool. However PSA testing alone frequently gives an inconclusive message. So if your PSA is slightly elevated, instead of submitting immediately to a random needle biopsy that would likely lead to un-called-for radical treatment for a non-threatening cancer, ask your urologist to slow down. Now is the time to gather more information by testing with OPKO-4K and color Doppler ultrasound. Never forget that prostate cancer is the tortoise of cancers, so don’t be frightened into making a decision you might regret.  This is one situation where taking the Local may provide a better ride than the Express.    

BUYER BEWARE

BY RALPH BLUM

According to Thomas Stamey, MD, a leading expert on prostate cancer and the man who developed the PSA test, “When the final chapter of this disease is written, it will prove that never in the history of oncology will so many men have been so over-treated for one disease.”

Why is this? One reason is financial. As a seasoned observer of the multi-billion dollar prostate cancer industry told me, “Your prostate is worth what Ted Turner would call ‘serious cash money.’” In a time of spiraling healthcare costs it is worth noting that biopsies alone have become a billion dollar a year business, and far too many of them are performed on men in their 70s and 80s with disease that would never become clinically significant in their lifetimes. But a positive biopsy puts them immediately at risk for serious infections and unnecessary radical treatment. Why? Because both doctors and patients over-react to the information the biopsy test supplies.

Although prostate cancer is typically a non-life-threatening disease, most men find it hard to believe that any kind of cancer can remain dormant for years. So they are highly motivated to get rid of it, and the quick fix of surgery seems like the most attractive option. Furthermore the urologist who performs the biopsy is a surgeon so that, providing the cancer is still contained in the gland, it is natural that his treatment of choice would be surgery.

Another reason so many men rush into surgery without, apparently, taking into account that even the most talented surgeon cannot promise a cure, let alone know if he can save the nerve bundles that control erections, is all the marketing hype surrounding robotic surgery.  So far there has been no proof that robotic surgery has better results than a regular prostatectomy when both are performed by equally skilled surgeons, but many men are lured by the glamor of “the robot that can operate.” As Paul Levy, former head of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, once said, “The easiest population to market in this country is the group of men worrying about the functioning of their penis.”

The psychological impact of a cancer diagnosis is overwhelming, and the emotional appeal of “cutting it out” drives far too many frightened and vulnerable men toward surgery although, in many cases, no immediate treatment is necessary. According to Stamey, prostate cancer is a disease all men get if they live long enough. “Our job now,” he said, “is to stop removing every man’s prostate who has prostate cancer. We originally thought we were doing the right thing, but we are now figuring out how we went wrong. Some men need prostate treatment but certainly not all of them."

So in what Stamey calls “this heavily screened country,” it is up to each of us to take the time to do some research and not let either fear or marketing hype dictate our treatment decisions.

Raising Awareness about MRI Imaging of the Prostate

BY MARK SCHOLZ, MD

Prostate cancer screening presents a unique challenge.  Prostate cancer is a very common, but only a minority of cases are deadly.  This creates a serious problem.  It’s good to detect high-grade disease because early treatment reduces mortality.  But PSA screening detects a lot of men with low-grade disease and these men are harmed. Why? Well-intentioned but over-enthusiastic doctors recommend treatment even though it’s truly medically unnecessary. 

Why We Over Diagnose
So what can be done?  Physician propensity for overtreatment will only change slowly.  The shortest pathway out of this dilemma is to stop diagnosing so much low-grade disease.  The crux of the problem is the random needle biopsy, a “blind” procedure that is widely considered to be the necessary first step for evaluating elevated PSA.  A million men undergo biopsy annually; 250,000 men are diagnosed; around a 100,000 have low-grade disease the can be safely monitored with “active surveillance.”

The Next Evolutionary Step
Three-Tesla multiparametric MRI (MP-MRI) scans developed by Siemens, Philips and GE can reliably detect high-grade disease without over diagnosing low-grade disease; these scanners accurately differentiate high-grade from low-grade tumors.  The availability of these new scanners makes random biopsy as currently utilized by most urologists archaic. Random biopsy involves inserting 12 needles into the rectum.  Beyond its propensity for over-diagnosis, 3% of men are hospitalized with serious infections.  Also, it is relatively inaccurate, failing to detect high grade disease over 15% of the time.

New Technology Growing Pains
Most internists and urologists are still unaware of these important technological advances.  Even those who are aware are still learning how to translate these new imaging reports into practical recommendations for their patients. Also, there is the challenge of maintaining quality control in this rapidly expanding world.  Despite these barriers the advantages of using imaging as a first step can’t be ignored.  PCRI has posted a list of centers that perform this type of imaging.  While we have some familiarity with these centers, for liability reasons we are unable to offer any official certification of their quality and accuracy.  On the other hand, new as this technology is, we feel it would be a disservice not to spread the word about its availability.

CHECK OUT THIS VIDEO: SO YOUR PSA IS HIGH, NOW WHAT? http://youtu.be/6QgcfVBzFNs

The Unending PSA Controversy

BY MARK SCHOLZ, MD

The controversy about PSA has been reignited by new data from Lancet and recently reported in the NY Times.  Even though PSA screening reduces mortality from the aggressive type of prostate cancer, the Lancet article again confirms that far too many men routinely receive unnecessary radical treatment for a low grade type of prostate cancer that is essentially harmless, an entity that should never have been called cancer in the first place.

Grade 6 “cancers” are harmless. However, it’s hardly surprising that men (and doctors) push for immediate treatment anyway.  No amount of reasoning seems to ease the instinctual fears generated by this venomous word.  Despite warnings about impotence and incontinence—and reassurance that low-grade prostate cancer can be safely monitored— 85% of these low-risk men undergo radical treatment anyway.

Unfortunately, outrage against the genuine harms of overtreatment is routinely directed at PSA when the real culprit is the 12-core random prostate biopsy. I have previously weighed in on this matter in various blogs and videos, but the prostate cancer intelligentsia continues to be totally clueless, routinely blaming PSA rather than the ridiculous policy of randomly jabbing needles into the rectums of a million men annually.

Random biopsy could perhaps be justified if prostate scans were unreliable. In fact prostate imaging does often miss small, low-grade cancers; the very ones we now know are harmless. But for high-grade disease, color Doppler ultrasound and multiparametric, three-tesla MRI, are very accurate. Evaluating an abnormal PSA with an imaging study rather than a biopsy greatly reduces the chance of diagnosing grade 6 disease, the type that so commonly leads to unwarranted treatment.

Low grade cancers are incredibly common. However, higher-grade cancers also occur.  When imaging detects a high grade lesion, a targeted biopsy (a limited number of cores aimed directly at the lesion) should be performed. Lesions that are biopsy-negative or show low-grade cancer, can be monitored without treatment.  If high-grade cancer is confirmed, further staging followed by treatment counseling is needed.

Trained doctors using state-of-the-art technology read the scans and summarize their overall impression which falls into one of three categories:

1.        No evidence for high grade disease, no need for biopsy

2.        A suspicious lesion is detected, a targeted biopsy is necessary

3.        An ambiguous area is detected. Either a targeted biopsy can be considered or alternatively, ongoing monitoring with another scan in 6-12 months can be considered

Imaging “sees” all sorts of things besides cancer, including scar tissue, areas of active prostatitis, and nodular areas from BPH. Lesions of greater concern are located in the peripheral zone, over a centimeter in size, show bulging of the prostate capsule or are associated with increased blood flow or diffusion. An ambiguous lesion should be targeted for biopsy if it enlarges over time during observation on subsequent scanning. Expert judgment that takes each individual’s characteristics into account comes into play during a discussion between the patient and doctor about whether or not a targeted biopsy is indicated.

Color Doppler ultrasound and multiparametric MRI are complementary. In our experience, the imaging findings between these two modalities match 80% of the time. However, in a minority of cases, one imaging modality illuminates a specific lesion more clearly. Therefore, with ambiguous lesions using one modality, we usually consider additional imaging with the other modality before recommending targeted biopsy.

One would think that new advances in imaging would lead to an immediate revolution in prostate cancer management. Unfortunately many doctors are either unaware of what’s available or unacquainted with the full capabilities of the latest technology.  Finally, even well informed doctors may be reluctant to embrace imaging when they are well paid to do random biopsies.

Random biopsy continues to fly unscathed under the radar while people mistakenly blame PSA for the great misfortune of having thousands of men undergo unnecessary surgery or radiation every year. Forgoing PSA screening altogether is both foolish and dangerous. State-of-the-art prostate imaging, rather than random biopsy, should be the first step in evaluating men with elevated PSA levels.

A Prostate Biopsy Can be Dangerous

BY MARK SCHOLZ, MD

Last August, I railed against too many biopsies. However, my experience at a recent prostate cancer meeting prompted me to revisit the topic for today’s blog.  There is now general agreement among experts that prostate cancer is over-diagnosed.  I believe this results from the excessive use of random prostate biopsy and, all too often, leads to radical over-treatment.

More than a million men in the United States have prostate tissue extracted by transrectal needle biopsy every year. Of all those biopsied, one-fourth, about 240,000 men, are diagnosed with prostate cancer. Of these 240,000, between one-third and one-half—that is, from 80,000 to 120,000—are diagnosed with a harmless condition destined to remain dormant for life. And yet, despite the innocuous nature of low-grade prostate cancer, the great majority of these unfortunate men still undergo radical treatment with decidedly negative impact on their quality of life.

The unwillingness of surgeons and radiation therapists to withhold treatment for low-grade prostate cancer is not entirely surprising given that doctors are specifically trained to treat cancer.  Understandably, patient enthusiasm for treatment is also a major contributing factor, considering how dangerous it would be to withhold treatment of most any other type of cancer.

The overtreatment of prostate cancer is giving experts sufficient concern that editorials are appearing in prestigious scientific journals, such at the Journal of Clinical Oncology and Lancet Oncology, discussing the possibility of renaming low-grade prostate cancer something besides “cancer.” Everyone seems to agree that it’s unreasonable to name a condition cancer when we know this low-grade form doesn’t usually metastasize.

Given these daunting issues, I was interested to survey a group of twenty male experts at a prostate cancer meeting last month about their attitudes toward biopsy.  Because the average age of the group was around sixty, everyone in the group readily agreed that if all of us underwent a standard random biopsy at least five would be diagnosed with prostate cancer. With such a high statistical risk of finding cancer, I then asked by a show of hands if anyone was interested in having a biopsy.

While an unnecessary cancer diagnosis is one risk of biopsy, there is one other significant risk: the possibility of toxic effects of biopsy itself.  The Journal of Urology this month reports that with prostate biopsy the rate of infections serious enough to require hospitalization has quadrupled to approximately one in fifty. One out every twenty of these infected men admitted to the hospital actually dies—making the risk of death from biopsy is one in a thousand.

Not a single doctor raised his hand.

Fortunately there is an excellent alternative to random biopsy.  Modern prostate imaging with 3-Tesla MRI or color Doppler ultrasound, is just as accurate for detecting high-grade disease. When an abnormality is detected through imaging, it can be targeted with just one or two biopsy cores instead of randomly shooting a dozen cores throughout the gland. And yet, despite the obvious advantages of imaging and targeted biopsy, practically all biopsies done in the United States are being performed randomly. 

Sadly, the general public—including most primary care physicians and even perhaps the majority of urologists and radiation oncologists—remains uninformed about the advantages of modern imaging technology. For more information about biopsy and Imaging Technology see my March 27, 2012 blog, Biopsy, Biopsy Everywhere: http://prostatesnatchers.blogspot.com/2012/03/biopsy-biopsy-everywhere.html

The Science Behind Active Surveillance

BY MARK SCHOLZ, MD

Active Surveillance versus the “Gold Standard”         
Ten years ago surgery was called the “Gold Standard,” the treatment to which every other kind of treatment should be compared.  Now you rarely encounter the Gold Standard argument to bolster surgery as the preferred treatment approach.  What scientific studies led to this change in perspective and why has it taken so long for this change to come about?
 
Finally, a Clear Answer
The final nail in the “Gold Standard” argument occurred in 2012, when the New England Journal of Medicine published a study by Dr. Timothy Wilt comparing the long-term outcome of surgery versus observation.¹ Between 1994 and 2002, seven hundred and thirty-one men volunteered to undergo either surgery or observation based on a coin flip. 

No Benefit for “Good” Cancer, Modest Benefits for “Bad” Cancer

The average age for the whole group of men was 67. The median PSA was 7.8. The study ultimately concluded that here was no difference in prostate cancer mortality with either approach. Mortality was within the expected range of statistical variation (5.8% died in the surgery group and 8.4% died in the observation group).  A small survival benefit for surgery was seen in men with a PSA over 10.  (Mortality was 12.8% in the observation group and 5.5% in the surgery group.) Dr. Wilt also reported the side effects of surgery.
     
Even before Dr. Wilt’s report was published, Active Surveillance had been gaining mainstream acceptance in the medical community. Multiple, independently-published studies consistently reach the same conclusion that Active Surveillance is safe.  Some of these studies are briefly summarized in the next few paragraphs. The full abstracts are posted on our website at www.keepmyprostate.com. 

Do All Men Have Prostate Cancer?

One of the most compelling arguments for forgoing radical treatment is based on the fact that prostate cancer is simply too common in the general population to represent an imminent threat to life. Studies of prostate glands removed from men dying of unrelated causes show that by the time they die, most men harbor prostate cancer.¹ That prostate cancer is incredibly common in the normal male population is also supported in another report from the New England Journal of Medicine where 4,692 healthy men over age 50 with a normal PSA (average 2.7) volunteered to undergo a simple six-core prostate biopsy.  The resulting biopsies showed that one-fourth of the men had cancer.²

Many Studies, Same Conclusion

Additional research has looked into comparing Active Surveillance with surgery. For example, a study from Johns Hopkins reported that life expectancy is only extended an average of 1.8 months by having immediate surgery.³  Another study in the Journal of Urology confirms that the grade of the tumor is an excellent method for determining which type of cancer is safe to monitor because prostate cancer mortality was almost nonexistent in 12,000 men with Gleason score of six or less  who were monitored for 12 years after surgery.⁴

Additional studies reporting the long-term outcome of Active Surveillance have been published: In a ten-year study of 1,000 men undergoing observation at Johns Hopkins Hospital, not a single man has died of prostate cancer or developed metastases.⁵ In another study of 450 men undergoing observation in Toronto that included some men with grade 7 disease, five out of 450 men died of prostate cancer.⁶

The Dark Side of Treatment

The idea of living with cancer may not seem at all attractive, but once the side effects of surgery are factored in, Active Surveillance starts to look really good. Unfortunately, the side effects of radical treatments like surgery are universally underemphasized by doctors and patients alike. Doctors downplay the effects of surgery because their years of working in the field accustom them to impotence and incontinence in their patients. The patients who have had treatment and are lucky enough to have had a good outcome, sing the praises of treatment because they took a radical step to remove their cancer and were fortunate to avoid bad consequences. The patients with bad outcomes are frequently too embarrassed to talk about their diapers and sexual incapacity.  They minimize the bad effects of the treatment and emphasize their gratefulness about “having been saved from cancer.”

The fact is that surgery and radiation cause permanent side effects with astounding frequency.  In a study of 475 men, four years after having surgery or radiation, less than 20% of men described their sexual function as returning to normal.⁷ In another study of 785 men, three years after surgery or seed implantation, less than 20% of men who had surgery and less than 50% of the men who had seeds described their sexual function as returning to normal.⁸ Unfortunately, to many people, all these statistics are an abstraction. Nevertheless, the tragedy of unnecessarily destroying even one man’s sexual identity cannot be calculated.

At First, New Thinking Always Seems Radical  

Let me close with an acknowledgement that Active Surveillance involves a totally new way of thinking. The very first conference to review the science of Active Surveillance was convened in San Francisco in 2007. At that time two hundred prostate cancer experts laid down the basic guidelines for Active Surveillance.  Doctors around the world are still being introduced to the idea of Active Surveillance. Believe it or not, some doctors have not even heard about it.  Inevitably, it takes time for people to change. Even so, that’s no reason for you to be trapped by outdated thinking.