News | Prostate Cancer | January 13, 2016

Study finds national controversy about screening affects what physicians choose to discuss with patients

prostate cancer screening, physicians, treatment information, study

January 13, 2016 — A recent article in the American Journal of Men’s Health found that men and their health providers are not having important discussions when it comes to prostate cancer screening and treatment.

As a UNMC urologist who treats prostate cancer, Chad LaGrange, M.D., subscribes to the American Urological Association’s guidelines that recommend screening for men 55-69 years of age and men younger than 55 years of age whose family member had prostate cancer or are African-American.

Since the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended in 2012 against prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening – a simple blood test – a number of organizations have begun to caution against routine population screening. At the same time, there are some organizations that continue to recommend PSA screening.

“Nobody is willing to make strict guidelines concerning prostate cancer screening,” said LaGrange, associate professor and the Edward and Sally Malashock Chair of Urologic Surgery at the University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC), who was one of the authors of the article. “Part of the problem is the current recommendations for screening are vague. The task force study has some flaws.

“Most of the guidelines today say it’s OK to screen, but if screening is done, health providers should really discuss with the patient what screening means and what the downfalls are and what the advantages are. This is called shared decision making.”

LaGrange and researchers from UNMC and the University of Memphis wanted to know if this “shared decision making” is happening between providers and patients, which patients are getting a good discussion about prostate cancer screening and which patients aren’t.

Lead author of the study is Soumitra Bhuyan, Ph.D., assistant professor in the Division of Health Systems, Management and Policy at the University of Memphis.

Researchers looked at 1,700 patient questionnaires nationwide, which asked questions about PSA screening to determine if physicians were going over the risks and benefits before doing the screening or explaining how prostate cancer is treated.

The researchers measured whether four areas were communicated with patients. Below are the areas and results:

  • 17 percent of patients were told that some experts disagree about whether men should have PSA tests;
  • 23 percent were told that some types of prostate cancer are slow-growing and need no treatment;
  • 25 percent were told that the PSA test isn’t always accurate in diagnosing prostate cancer; and
  • 31 percent of patients were told that treating any type of prostate cancer can lead to serious side effects such as urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction.

LaGrange said the study showed only 9 percent of patients had all four areas discussed with them.

His advice for men with the conflicting information?

“The only way to find the serious prostate cancer cases is to screen,” he said. “If there’s a diagnosis, then men should get a second opinion to decide whether it needs to be treated based on the guidelines and all clinical information available.”

LaGrange said the debate should focus not so much on prostate cancer screening but rather on over-treating prostate cancer.

“Some cancers don’t need to be treated. We can watch patients and simply follow them,” he said.

LaGrange said one of the biggest take home messages from the study is that men should establish a long-term relationship with a primary care physician.

“This speaks to the physician-patient relationship. An open discussion is more likely with a provider with whom patients have a long-term relationship,” he said.

Other UNMC researchers who were part of the study include Aastha Chandak, Niodita Gupta, M.D., and Sudhir Isharwal, M.D.

For more information: www.unmc.edu


Related Content

News | Lung Imaging

Sept. 8, 2026 – Brainomix and Endeavor BioMedicines recently presented positive results from the Brainomix AI-driven ...

Time September 09, 2026
arrow
News | Ultrasound Imaging

Sept. 2, 2026 – Sonex Health and The Institute of Advanced Ultrasound Guided Procedures have announced publication of ...

Time September 04, 2026
arrow
News | Radiation Oncology

Sept. 2, 2026 — Children with one of the deadliest forms of brain cancer may benefit from an additional course of ...

Time September 03, 2026
arrow
News | Radiology Imaging

Sept. 1, 2026— A new study from the Harvey L. Neiman Health Policy Institute found that the odds of imaging following an ...

Time September 01, 2026
arrow
News | RSNA

Aug. 18, 2026 —The board of trustees of the Radiological Society of North America's (RSNA) Research & Education (R&E) ...

Time August 24, 2026
arrow
News | Lung Imaging

Aug. 11, 2026 — Noah Medical has launched the Galaxy II software, the next evolution of its robotic-assisted ...

Time August 10, 2026
arrow
News | PET Imaging

July 14, 2026 — New research is shedding new light on the biological basis of schizophrenia by directly measuring ...

Time July 15, 2026
arrow
News | Radiation Oncology

July 10, 2026 — A new study led by researchers at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai found that although the ...

Time July 10, 2026
arrow
News | Radiation Oncology

July 8, 2026 — GE HealthCare and Mayo Clinic have announced the MI-BET (Molecular Imaging Biomarker-Based End of Therapy ...

Time July 09, 2026
arrow
News | Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)

June 9, 2026 — An investigator at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai has received international recognition for ...

Time June 15, 2026
arrow
Subscribe Now