Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Archives
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • Other Publications
    • abfm

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
American Board of Family Medicine
  • Other Publications
    • abfm
American Board of Family Medicine

American Board of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Archives
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • JABFM On Twitter
  • JABFM On YouTube
  • JABFM On Facebook
LetterCorrespondence

Re: The Prevalence of Low-Value Prostate Cancer Screening in Primary Care Clinics: A Study Using the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey

Takeshi Takahashi
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine May 2023, 36 (3) 521; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2023.230008R2
Takeshi Takahashi
Health and Welfare Bureau, Kitakyushu City Office, Jyonai 1-1, Kitakyushu, Japan, 803-8501 jazzy@kuhp.kyoto-u.ac.jp
MD, PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

To the Editor: Gillette et al analyze how PSA screening for age 70 and over, a low-value service, is being implemented in the United States.1

For PSA screening, the United States Preventive Service Task Force (USPSTF) assigns grade C to those aged 55 to 70 and grade D to all other age groups. By definition, D is not recommended to be done, with solid evidence that the harm outweighs the benefit. In other words, Grade D means that the service should not be performed because it will cause harm to the subject. In addition, C is that the service can not be recommended because insufficient level of certainty of evidence that the benefits outweigh the harms, that is, experimental medicine rather than evidence based medicine. So, in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, it is a condition of implementation that subjects are fully informed about the benefits and harms and consents to undergo the service. Grade C is uncertain or zero value and Grade D is negative value. Therefore, if we apply this USPSTF grade to the definition of The Centre for Value-Based Insurance Design (V-BID), PSA screening for aged 55 to 70, grade C, would barely qualify as low value care, but would be out of the question for aged 70 and older, grade D. The authors are not responsible, though, as the V-BID center describes PSA screening for aged 70 and over as low-value care. However, true to the authors' original research intention is a study to analyze how PSA screening for aged 55 to 70 is actually performed in the US.

The authors states, “Currently, it is thought that PC screening confers the most benefit between the ages of 55 to 69 years with the lowest risk of overdiagnosis and overtreatment” In fact, the USPSTF considers PSA screening for aged 55 to 70 as a small possible benefit, many harms (overdiagnosis and complication of tests and treatments), which is essentially a negative value. The USPSTF upgraded from Grade D to C in 2018 but remains Grade D in content.2 Although there seems to be a negligible benefit when evaluated in terms of cancer-specific mortality, early detection and treatment of prostate cancer does not lead to an improvement in overall mortality because of the overwhelming frequency of other-cause mortality. The only RCT that showed the benefit had an age range of 55 to 70 years, so PSA screening for that age-group was assigned Grade C and the rest were assigned Grade D. The problem of overdiagnosis remains the same for all ages. Overdiagnosis does not mean that there are too many cases diagnosed as cancer, but that the expression “cancer” is overdone. Even if the number of cases can be reduced by excluding indolent cases, this does not mean that the situation will improve. Overdiagnosis is caused by problems with the diagnostic tests: pathologic examination.2 In addition, the USPSTF also states that the decision to perform PSA screening should be an individual.1 This means that PSA screening for aged 55 to 70 should be funded by private health insurance or research funding and not by public health insurance. The VHA and Medicare in the US are also public to some extent. It is possible that being covered by these public insurances may mislead subjects into believing that there is evidence of benefit with regard to PSA screening. Strictly speaking, this violates the Declaration of Helsinki.

The authors state as limitation, “First, we only examined primary care PC screening, so we did not include urologists’ PC screening behaviors.” In practice, screening by urologists would be still very active. Their conclusions are remarkably modest.

Notes

  • To see this article online, please go to: http://jabfm.org/content/36/3/521.full.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Gillette C,
    2. Garvick S,
    3. Bates N,
    4. Martin CM,
    5. Hanchate A,
    6. Reuland DS
    . The prevalence of low-value prostate cancer screening in primary care clinics: a study using the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. J Am Board Fam Med 2023;36:152–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Takahashi T
    . Two conflicting guidelines on prostate specific antigen screening in Japan. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2023;53:280–3.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of the American Board of Family     Medicine: 36 (3)
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
Vol. 36, Issue 3
May-June 2023
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Board of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Re: The Prevalence of Low-Value Prostate Cancer Screening in Primary Care Clinics: A Study Using the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Board of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Board of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
1 + 8 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Re: The Prevalence of Low-Value Prostate Cancer Screening in Primary Care Clinics: A Study Using the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey
Takeshi Takahashi
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine May 2023, 36 (3) 521; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2023.230008R2

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Re: The Prevalence of Low-Value Prostate Cancer Screening in Primary Care Clinics: A Study Using the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey
Takeshi Takahashi
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine May 2023, 36 (3) 521; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2023.230008R2
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Notes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Keeping Score of the Scores: Additional Perspectives on the Decline of Family Medicine ITE Scores
  • Re: Local Economic Inequality and the Primary Care Physician Workforce in North Carolina
  • Programs Can Improve the Diversity Workforce in Family Medicine
Show more Correspondence

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Authors & Reviewers

  • Info For Authors
  • Info For Reviewers
  • Submit A Manuscript/Review

Other Services

  • Get Email Alerts
  • Classifieds
  • Reprints and Permissions

Other Resources

  • Forms
  • Contact Us
  • ABFM News

© 2023 American Board of Family Medicine

Powered by HighWire