Newsweek - National News, World News, Health, Technology, Entertainment and more... - Newsweek.com

HEADLINE HEADLINE HEADLINE

SPONSORED BY
Full Post
Posted Friday, November 20, 2009 3:14 PM

Mammograms, Pap Smears, and the PSA: How Other Screening Tests Measure Up

Krista Gesaman

Earlier this week the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force shocked legions of women when it recommended waiting until 50 for a first mammogram, despite previous recommendations that women begin mammograms at 40. Then today, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists released new guidelines for Pap smears. Previously, all sexually active women were encouraged to get the test—which examines cells in the cervix to determine whether there are any abnormalities that could lead to cancer—every year. Now, the recommendations state that women begin the Pap test at 21, retest every other year, and then, once women hit their 30s, schedule a test every three years.

Quite often, new technology hits the market before long-term studies have been completed, says Ted Epperly, a family physician and past president of the American Academy of Family Physicians. Only after years of using the equipment can experts then gather statistics about their efficacy. And, Epperly suggests, there may be other tests once considered annual necessities that are now being reevaluated in light of new evidence. We asked Epperly to evaluate other preventative tests—once considered lifesavers—and relay what the evidence currently suggests. As always, be sure to check with your doctor about your individual risks and treatment plan.

COLONOSCOPY

Advertisement

Both men and women are advised to have their first colonoscopy at 50, the American Cancer Society reports. In some cases, testing for colon cancer can be delayed until age 55, Epperly says. He goes on to warn that testing should not be delayed in instances where there is a family history of colon cancer or where a person experiences symptoms including weight loss, bloody stool, or unexplained abdominal pain. Colonoscopies have one of the highest success rates: they can reduce a person's chances of dying from colon cancer by between 60 and 70 percent.

PROSTATE SCREENING

The American Cancer Society reports that screenings should begin for men at 50. But just like mammograms, the final results can be misleading. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is a protein produced by the cells of the prostate gland, and a prostate screening test measures the level of this protein in a man’s blood. It’s possible for a man to have high levels of the protein in his system, but not actually have cancer. The National Cancer Institute reports that “only 25 to 35 percent of men who have a biopsy due to an elevated PSA level actually have prostate cancer.” It's also possible that the PSA can detect cancer so slow-moving that it likely would have gone undetected before the patient died of other causes.

The test is most useful for men who have a family history of prostate cancer or are experiencing symptoms like painful urination, weight loss, or pelvic pain. Black men are also encouraged to seek screening because they have a higher potential rate of prostate cancer. Evidence seems to indicate that men who don’t fall into any of these categories can forgo the prostate-cancer screening test, Epperly says.

CHEST X-RAY

As late as 2005, smokers were encouraged to get chest X-ray’s to detect any signs of lung cancer. But studies indicate the X-ray can produce misleading results. The U.S. National Cancer Institute conducted a study where 67,000 people received chest X-rays. The results showed abnormalities in nearly 6,000 cases, but after follow-up consultations with doctors, only 126 patients were actually diagnosed with lung cancer. Currently, no major professional organization, including the American Cancer Society, recommends routine screening because it hasn’t been shown to prevent people from dying of cancer.

FULL BODY SCAN

Total-body MRIs can also strain your wallet and cause unneeded anxiety. Popular in the past seven years as a general preventative tool, an MRI will produce images of anatomic abnormalities and is designed to help diagnose tumors, spinal-cord injuries, and problems with the lungs, kidneys, and uterus, the Mayo Clinic reports. However, MRIs often detect small irregularities that ultimately don’t require more testing or surgery. Epperly says patients often become more anxious when these irregularities are spotted and invest in costly medical exams to confirm that they are, in fact, healthy. Patients primarily need MRIs when a doctor is exploring a specific symptom, like whether excessive headaches might be the result of a tumor, Epperly says. Unless recommended by a doctor, total body images can be a serious financial burden, and may expose the patient to harmful radiation.

You must be a registered user to comment.  Click here to register.  Already a user?  Click here to login.

Member Comments

Posted By: Lumpyhead14 (December 1, 2009 at 4:37 PM)

There is no radiation in MRI. That's why it's called MAGNETIC Resonance Imaging. Let's not scare anyone out of getting the treatment they need, okay?


Posted By: Fran Howell (November 21, 2009 at 4:49 PM)

Lost in the discussion of new cervical cancer screening recommendations are those women who still need yearly Pap/pelvic exams. Most news stories do not mention exceptions cited by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which could have deadly consequences if ignored. DES Daughters, who were exposed before birth to the anti-miscarriage drug diethylstilbestrol, have a lifelong risk for a rare form of cervical and vaginal cancer. The CDC estimates there are about two million DES Daughters in the U.S. and they, along with their doctors, should be fully aware that their need for annual Pap/pelvic screenings has not changed. DES Action USA (www.desaction.org) would like to see this important exception highlighted in all reports regarding the new Pap screening recommendations. Thank you.


Posted By: captbilly (November 20, 2009 at 8:23 PM)

I have been facinated to watch as people discuss the idea of "rationing" as though it was a new dirty word.  Did anyone actually think that a society can provide infinite unrationed levels of anything?  Of course there is rationing of health care, but that is not necessarilly a bad thing even for the individuals involved.  Nobody but some disturbed fetishist wants to be constantly tested, poked and prodded.  A mamogram may sound like nothing but for most women I had spoken to it is an embarrasing and stressful test, and waiting for the results can be agony.  And when it turns out that there is no statistical significance between having some of these tests and actually surviving any longer than if you didn't have the test, the discomfort and anxiety is pointless.

People are now telling enecdotal stories about how they were saved by a mamogram, but what they are missing is that this study shows that they may well be wrong.  Finding a tumor and removing it, it turns out is not the same thing as imporving ones chances of living any longer.  For too long we judged the efficacy of these tests by the number of tumors found and not by the survival rates of the patients, and that is an amazingly unscientific way of looking at things.  Researchers and doctors simply assumed that if they were finding tumors earlier and more often that the survival rates must have been better, never it would seem even considering the fact that our body deals with mutated and damaged cells all the time.

We obviously need to ration care, but we want to ration it in a way that maximizes survival rates not the number od tests or proceedures performed.  No society can provide unlimited health care, and even if we could it is likely that it would not even be good for patients.  Imagine what could have been done with all the money that was spent on diagnosing and treating tumors that would have resolved on their own.  We need to understand that it is a matter of either/or not both, we can't spend limited resources on unlimited care, just as we cannot have all the fighter planes or soldier that some might want.