Published in Skeptical Inquirer Volume 43, No.1 (Jan/Feb 2019).
Translated to Portuguese here.
“Pink October” and “Blue November”
are campaigns to promote awareness for breast and prostate cancer respectively.
In Brazil, as well in other countries, the population is encouraged to do tests
such as the PSA for prostate cancer and mammography for breast cancer.
The
main idea is called screening: to
perform tests in healthy persons to detect and to treat diseases before their
symptoms appear – to increase the cure chances and even to offer a less
aggressive treatment. A good example of cancer screening is for cervical
cancer, where incidence of the advanced cases decreased after Papanicolaou test
was introduced (Adegoke et al. 2012). However,
studies that assessed the efficacy of screening for prostate or breast cancer
show that in reality things are more complicated than usually advertised by
those campaigns.
On May 2018, the US Preventive Services Task Force
(USPSTF) reviewed studies of PSA screening for prostate cancer (Fenton et al. 2018). Only two randomized controlled trials were of sufficient
quality to assess impact on mortality. The PLCO1 did not show
differences in mortality. The ERSPC2 trial showed that screening
reduced prostate cancer mortality in men aged 55-69. Even in that case, it’s far from simple. In order to
avoid 1 prostate cancer death and 3 cases of metastatic prostate cancer, 1000
men aged 55-69 have to be screened every 4 years during 13 years. Of those, 27
men received treatment—prostate surgery and/or radiation therapy. More
important, the majority of those who were treated, 24 patients, received
aggressive treatment with no benefits, only the harms caused by the treatment
itself. Regardless of screening, 5 men died from prostate cancer. See Table 1
for complete estimates.
So a careful analysis of cancer
screening must consider harms of treatment. The USPSTF review found that, of those who undergo
complete prostate surgery, 1 in 5 men develop urinary incontinence and 2 in 3
experience impotence. More than half of who receive radiation therapy develop
impotence and 1 in 6 men develop bowel symptoms, including bowel urgency and
fecal incontinence (Fenton et al. 2018).
The overall picture that prostate cancer screening might
cause more harm than good it’s far from new. A 2013 Cochrane meta-analysis (Ilic et al. 2013) of five studies showed no reduction in mortality and in
2012 USPSTF recommended against screening regardless of age. Now, the USPSTF concluded the benefits and harms
of screening for men aged 55-69 are balanced, recommending an individualized
decision after a careful consideration of potential benefits and harms. For men
aged 70 and older, the USPSTF recommended against screening. See link for
USPSTF decision aid.
Regarding breast cancer, the
evidence might look more favorable to screening with mammography, but again not
crystal clear as the campaign messages suggest. A 2018 JAMA article (Keating and Pace 2018) estimated that 10 of 10 000
women in their 50s screened annually with mammography during 10 years would
avoid breast cancer death. But 940 women would have unnecessary biopsy and 44
would be treated needlessly with surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, or hormonal
therapy. Despite screening, 62 women would still die from breast cancer. Since
breast cancer treatment improved dramatically as trials were conducted,
screening benefits might be even smaller today than those reported in trials (Keating and Pace 2018). To offer benefits while
reducing the possible harms, the USPSTF recommends mammography every 2 years for women aged 50-74 and
recommends against teaching breast
self-examination.
This situation is not restricted to
breast and prostate cancer. Between 1975 and 2009, the incidence of thyroid
cancer in United Stated tripled – from 4.9 to 14.4 in 100 000. But the
mortality rate remained constant: 0.56 in 100 000 (Esserman
et al. 2014). A study in Finland detected thyroid cancers in autopsy of
36% of patients that had died for other causes (Esserman
et al. 2014).
Autopsy studies in prostate in
patients that died for other causes also show a great disease reservoir (Sandhu and Adriole 2012). In autopsied men aged
60-79, the incidence of prostate cancer varied between 14 and 77%.
Astonishingly, prostate cancer was found even in autopsied men in their
twenties, with an incidence of 8-11% (Sandhu and
Adriole 2012).
What these data are describing is
called overdiagnosis (Welch and Black 2010; Carter and Barrat 2017).
Screening detects mainly non-lethal or harmless cases of cancers – if it
weren’t for screening we would die from other causes not even realizing that we
also had cancer. Overdiagnosis is not a false-positive result, which is a
positive test that subsequent evaluation shows no signs of cancer. In
overdiagnosis, the lesion detected actually meets the diagnostic criteria for
cancer, but would not have been diagnosed in the absence of screening (Welch and Black 2010; Carter and Barrat 2017).
Overdiagnosis and its consequences
are the main harm of screening. Since at the time of diagnosis, it is
impossible differentiate harmless lesions from lethal ones, almost all cases
are treated (Welch and Black 2010). Estimates suggest
that between 20% and 60% (Fenton et al. 2018; Carter
et al. 2015) of screen-detected prostate cancers were overdiagnosed. Of
screen-detected breast cancers, overdiagnosis estimate from trials is 19% (Keating and Pace 2018), while an analysis of
screening programs reported 52% (Jørgensen and
Gøtzsche 2009). Then, a few might benefit from prostate and breast
cancer screening, but more patients face harms of aggressive treatment they
didn’t even need it in the first place.
One of the premises of screening is
that cancer has a linear progression, which would always allow detection before
it’s lethal. But this premise is outdated. Cancers are heterogeneous, with
different progression rates (Figure 1) (Carter and
Barrat 2017). Screening is more likely to detect cancers that grow
slowly or would have regressed. Critically, most lethal cancers, those that
grow fast, are less likely to be detected by screening because they tend to cause
symptoms between screening rounds (Carter and Barrat
2017).
 |
Figure 1. Heterogenity of cancer. Not all cancers have the same progression rate (Carter and Barrat 2017; adpated from Welch and Black 2010).
|
While the messages encouraging
screening tests rarely mention overdiagnosis, they often come with claims like:
“If it is early diagnosed, the chances of cure are 95%, but it’s 20% if
detected in advanced stage”. However, when overdiagnosis exists, the rate of
cured patients is biased – the number of patients that survived cancer
increases “automatically” because those patients with new harmless cases are
now classified as “cured”, even when screening offers no benefits. Ironically,
the rise in cancer incidence and inflated rates of cure due to overdiagnosis
might reinforce the efforts to screening leading to even more overdiagnosis3
(Brodersen et al. 2018).
Another way the survival metric is
biased relates to how many years the patient has lived after the diagnosis.
Screening is only effective if it can detect diseases earlier. Consider for
instance that without screening patients are diagnosed due to symptoms at 70
years of age and die at 75. Consider also that these patients would be
diagnosed by screening at 65 years and die due to cancer at 75. With these
descriptions screening looks beneficial since whoever does screening has a
survival of 10 years and who doesn’t only survives 5 years after the diagnosis.
In both cases, the patient died at the same time; screening only made the
diagnosis to occur earlier, without actually increasing the life expectancy.
This is called the lead time bias
(Raffle and Grey 2007).
Due to biases, survival statistics
do not show the efficacy of screening. If screening works, incidence of
advanced cases must reduce. After the introduction of breast and prostate
cancer screening, it was expected an increase in the incidence of early cancers.
That should be followed by, as the population ages, a compensatory decrease in advanced
cancers, while overall incidence remains unchanged (Esserman
et al. 2009). Note in Figure 2 that the incidence of early breast cancers
increased significantly, while the incidence of regional cancers decreased very
little and rate of distant metastases remained stable. Interestingly, although
breast cancer mortality is falling, the fall was larger in young women that
were not invited to screening (Narod et al. 2015).
In addition, breast cancer mortality decreased in a similar way over the world,
but the start of screening differs between countries (Gøtzsche
2015a). Similar observations could be for prostate cancer. After
screening, there was not a significant decrease in invasive cases as expected and
different rates of screening and treatment in different regions were unrelated to
prostate cancer mortality (Esserman et al. 2009).
These trend analyses, while does not show causality, indicate that screening
leads to considerable overdiagnosis of early disease and its impact on breast
and prostate cancer mortality is small at best.
 |
Figure 2. Incidence of different stages of breast cancer standardized by age in the United States White. SEER 9, 1975–2011 (Narod et al. 2015)
|
The best approach to measure
screening efficacy is using randomized controlled trials, like PLCO and ERSPC. Trials
compare screened group with control group, looking for a reduction in deaths
caused by the cancer being screened for—what it’s called cancer specific mortality. It
is the reduction in cancer specific mortality that prompts the claim that
screening “save lives.” But as women overdiagnosed with breast cancer
might receive radiotherapy, which increases mortality due to lung cancer (Gøtzsche 2015b), screening could cause more deaths
than breast cancer deaths averted. Since deaths by treatment are usually
classified as other causes, cancer specific mortality is biased in favor of
screening. This bias is avoided by using overall mortality. What might be shocking is that cancer screening
trials do not show overall mortality reduction. As Vinay Prasad and
colleagues wrote in the BMJ (Prasad et al.
2016), “cancer screening has never been shown to save lives.4”
Does screening increase deaths from other causes? We don’t know—maybe it’s
just chance, since millions of people are required in a trial to look for a
difference in overall mortality. Prasad and colleagues argued those large
trials are needed to know screening effects. In contrast, researcher Peter Gøtzsche think such trials are
not an ethical thing to do, since a large number of people would have to be
screened without knowing whether this will increase their lives, while it will
make them less happy due to psychological distress caused by false-positives
results and overdiagnosis (Gøtzsche 2015a). Due
to small, if any, benefit in mortality but documented harms, Gøtzsche has stated that mammography
screening would have been withdrawal from the market, had it been a drug (Gøtzsche 2015b).
Other scientists, like Laura
Esserman, think that we should focus on ways to make screening better. For
example, she and colleagues suggested not to call cancer those indolent cases,
which are usually detected by screening (Esserman et
al. 2009). Since a cancer diagnosis is associated with a lethal disease
that causes suffering in the mind of patients and physicians, renaming those
indolent lesions might reduce needlessly treatment. This was firstly proposed
almost ten years ago, but as late as August 2018 other scientists are still
asking for those changes (Nickel et al. 2018).
Esserman has also proposed to move to a risk-based screening, which targets people
at high risk of cancer. Testing whether risk-based screening can reduce
mammography use without increasing advanced cancers is the objective of the
Wisdom study (Esserman et al. 2017).
Meanwhile, the public needs to be
properly informed. The prostate and breast cancer awareness campaigns must be
used to clearly tell the population the complexities regarding screening. This
is very important; according to surveys women overestimate the benefits of
mammography screening by a factor of 10-200 (Wegwarth
and Gigerenzer 2018). Also, as screening is often promoted as
prevention, 68% of women in a survey wrongly believed that mammography reduces
their chance of developing breast cancer (Domenighetti
et al. 2003). As a perspective article in New England Journal of Medicine
(Biller-Andorno 2014) pointed out, “How can
women make an informed decision if they overestimate the benefit of mammography
so grossly?” This might be explained by doctor’s failure to communicate
screening risk: in a survey of 300 US screening patients, 90% of them had not
received information about possible harms of screening by their doctors (Wegwarth and Gigerenzer 2018).
That’s not the whole story. A 2017
systematic-review showed that doctors usually overestimate screening and
treatment benefits while they underestimate its harms (Hoffman
and Del Mar 2017). A survey with
primary care physicians in the United States suggests that doctors
misunderstand screening statistics: 76% of doctors participants were misguided
by the survival metric discussed earlier (Wegwarth et
al. 2012). They wrongly thought patients diagnosed by screening with
better 5-year survival rates than patients diagnosed by symptoms means
screening test saved lives. As asked in an article (Wegwarth
and Gigerenzer 2018), "Why is risk literacy so scarce in health
care?" The authors discussed that the
difficulties to access risks and benefits in health likely lies with how
statistical information is presented, from biased reports in medical journals
to the use of relative risk and misleading statistics by the media. And research
shows that decision aids help patients to be more informed regarding screening
decisions (Stacey et al. 2014). The researchers beautifully concluded: “A
critical mass of informed citizens will not resolve all healthcare problems,
but it can constitute a major triggering factor for better care (Wegwarth and Gigerenzer 2018).”
Notes
1.
PLCO: Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer
Screening Trial
2.
ERSPC: European Randomized Study of
Screening for Prostate Cancer.
3.
This has been called the popularity paradox:
“The greater the harm through overdiagnosis and overtreatment from screening,
the more people there are who believe they owe their health, or even their
life, to the programme.” (Raffle and Grey 2007, 68).
4.
Lung cancer screening with CT in
heavy smokers in a 2011 trial reduced lung cancer and overall mortality. Even
though this is case of screening in a high-risk group, Prasad and colleagues
considered the best evidence for overall mortality reduction in a cancer
screening trial. However, as discussed by the authors, a 2013 meta-analysis for
the USPSTF have not shown overall mortality reduction (Prasad et al. 2016).
Interesting
popular readings
·
Overdiagnosed: Making People Sick in the Pursuit of Health by H. Gilbert Welch, Lisa Schwartz and Steve Woloshin
(2012);
· Mammography Screening: Truth, Lies and Controversy by Peter C. Gøtzsche (2012).
References
Adegoke, O., S. Kulasingam, and B. Virnig. 2012.
Cervical cancer trends in the United States: a 35-year population-based
analysis. Journal of Womens Health
(Larchmt) 21(10):1031-7. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2011.3385
Biller-Andorno, N. 2014. Abolishing Mammography
Screening Programs? A View from the
Swiss Medical Board. New England Journal
of Medicine 370(21): 1965-1967
Brodersen, J., B.S. Kramer,
H. Macdonald, et al. 2018. Focusing on overdiagnosis as a driver of too much
medicine. BMJ 362:k3494. doi:
10.1136/bmj.k3494
Carter, J.L., R.J. Colett, and R.P. Harri. 2015.
Quantifying and monitoring overdiagnosis in cancer screening: a systematic
review of methods. BMJ 350:g7773.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.g7773
Carter, S.M., and A.
Barratt. 2017. What is overdiagnosis and why should we take it seriously in
cancer screening? Public Health Research
and Practice 27(3):e2731722. doi: https://doi.org/1017061/phrp2731722
Domenighetti, G., B. D’Avanzo,
M. Egger, et al. 2003. Women’s perception of the benefits of mammography
screening: population-based survey in four countries. International Journal of Epidemiology 32:816-21
Esserman, L.J., H.
Anton-Culver, A. Borowsky, et al. 2017. The WISDOM Study: breaking the deadlock
in the breast cancer screening debate.
npj Breast Cancer 3:34. doi:10.1038/s41523-017-0035-5
Esserman, L.J., I.M. Thompson, B. Reid, et al. 2014.
Addressing overdiagnosis and overtreatment in cancer: a prescription for
change. The Lancet Oncology 15: e234-e242. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70598-9
Esserman, L, Y. Shieh, and I. Thompsom. 2009. Rethinking
screening for breast cancer and prostate cancer. JAMA 302(15):1685-92. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.1498.
Fenton, J.J., M.S. Weyrich, S. Durbin, et al.
2018. Prostate-specific antigen–based screening for prostate cancer: A
systematic evidence review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality,
Evidence Synthesis No. 154. AHRQ Publication No. 17-05229-EF-1.
Gøtzsche, P.C. 2015a.
Commentary: Screening: a seductive paradigm that has generally failed us. International Journal of Epidemiology
244(1): 278-80. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyu267.
———. 2015b. Mammography
screening is harmful and should be abandoned. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 108(9): 341–345.
doi:10.1177/0141076815602452
Hoffman, T.C., and C. Del
Mar. 2017. Clinicians’ expectations of the benefits and harms of Treatments,
Screening, and Tests: A Systematic Review.
JAMA Internal Medicine 177(3):407-419. doi:
10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.8254.
Ilic, D., M.M. Neuberger, M. Djulbegovic, and P.
Dahm. 2013. Screening for prostate cancer.
Cochrane
Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 1. Art. No.: CD004720. doi:
10.1002/14651858.CD004720.pub3
Jørgensen, K.J., and
P.C. Gøtzsche. 2009. Overdiagnosis in publicly organised mammography screening
programmes: systematic review of incidence trends. BMJ 339:b2587. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2587
Keating, N.L., and L.E. Pace. 2018. Breast
cancer screening in 2018: time for shared decision making. JAMA. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.3388
Narod, S.A., J. Iqbal,
and A.B. Miller. 2015. Why have breast cancer mortality rates declined? Journal of Cancer Policy 5: 8-17
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcpo.2015.03.002
Nickel, B., R. Moynihan, A. Barratt, et al.
2018. Renaming low risk conditions labelled as cancer. BMJ 362:k3322 doi: 10.1136/bmj.k3322
Prasad, V., J. Lenzer,
and D.H. Newman. 2016. Why cancer screening has never been shown to “save
lives”—and what we can do about it. BMJ
352:h6080 doi: 10.1136/bmj.h6080
Raffle, A.E., and J.A.M.
Gray. 2007. Screening: evidence and
practice. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-921449-5
Sandhu, G.S., and G.L
Adriole. 2012. Overdiagnosis of prostate cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs (45):146–151
Stacey, D., F. Légaré, K.
Lewis, et al. 2014. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or
screening decisions. Cochrane Database of
Systematic Reviews CD001431.doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub5
Wegwarth, O., and G.
Gigerenzer. 2018. The barrier to informed choice in cancer screening:
Statistical Illiteracy in Physicians and Patients. Recent Results in Cancer Research 210: 207-221. doi:
10.1007/978-3-319-64310-6_13.
Wegwarth, O., L.M.
Schwartz, S. Woloshin, et al. 2012. Do physicians understand cancer screening
statistics? A national survey of primary care physicians in the United States. Annals of Internal Medicine 156:340-9.
doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-156-5-201203060-00005.
