document: Prostate Cancer Screening Does n't Cut Death Rates : Study And researchers add that widescale testing is linked to overdiagnosis , overtreatment THURSDAY , March 31 -LRB- HealthDay News -RRB- - A 20-year study from Sweden suggests that screening for prostate cancer does not substantially reduce the risk of death from the disease . On the other hand , a good many men might receive false-positive results and overtreatment , adding an element of risk to widescale screening , the researchers report in the March 31 online issue of the BMJ . '' `` In the light of our findings , I would say that the benefit from screening is not sufficient to support mass screening , '' '' said study author Dr. Gabriel Sandblom , an associate professor at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm . '' `` However , '' '' added Sandblom , '' `` the study was initiated more than 20 years ago , when PSA -LSB- prostate specific antigen testing -RSB- was not available and the treatment of localized prostate cancer was not as effective as it is today . I would thus not categorically advise against PSA testing based on an individual decision from a man who feels concern about prostate cancer . '' '' This advice is not out of line with recently updated guidelines on prostate cancer screening from the U.S. government . The recommendations , issued in 2008 , take a dim view of prostate cancer screenings at any age for healthy men and flatly recommend against them entirely for men over 75 . The American Cancer Society has also recently revisited the issue of prostate cancer screening . '' `` A little over a year ago , the American Cancer Society revised its guidelines , which reinforced the message that men need to be informed that there are known benefits , but also limits , to PSA screenings , '' '' said Dr. Durado Brooks , director of prostate and colon cancer at the American Cancer Society . '' `` The American Cancer Society does not encourage nor discourage prostate cancer screenings . '' '' This new study does carry with it several significant weaknesses , Brooks added . In particular , because of the timing and design of the study , most men really only received one and , at most , two PSA tests . '' `` At best , this is a study of one or two PSA tests in men in their late 50s and early 60s , '' '' he said . For the study , researchers looked at all men in the Swedish city of Norrkoping who were between the ages of 50 and 69 in 1987 , a total of 9,026 men . Of these , 1,494 men were screened for prostate cancer - first with a digital rectal exam -LRB- DRE -RRB- and , starting in 1993 , with both DRE and PSA tests - every three years . In 1996 , only men aged 69 or under were screened . The remaining 7,532 men did not undergo screening and served as a comparison group . The mortality rate for men who underwent screening was not significantly different from that in the control group , although tumors in the screened group tended to be smaller and more localized . Commenting on the study , Dr. Chad LaGrange , an assistant professor of urology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha , said he believes the findings actually add '' `` much more uncertainty '' '' to an already complex problem . With more and more studies on the subject , '' `` guidelines have become vague recommendations , '' '' he said . '' `` We do n't really have any good rules anymore . '' '' The bottom line : '' `` It 's not just as simple as PSA screening either works or it does n't . Patients should talk about it with their doctor , '' '' LaGrange said . '' `` PSA testing should n't be just a reflex anymore . '' '' But the good news hidden here is that the number of prostate cancer deaths continues to decline , whether it be better screening or better treatment , he said . '' `` We 're doing something right , '' '' LaGrange stated . More information
doc_bio_tags: B O B O O O B O O O O B O O O B O O O B O B O O B I O O O O O O B I O B I O B O B O O O B I O B O B O O B O O O O O O O O O B B I I I O B O O O O O B O O B O O B O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O B O O B O O O O O O B O B O O B O O O B O O O O O O O B I O O B I O O B I O B O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I I O O B O B O O B O O O O O O B O B B O O O O B O O O O O O O O O B I I B B O O O O O O O O O O O O B O O O O O O O O O O O O B B I O B O B O O B I O O B O O O O O O O B O O B O B O O O O O B O B I O O O O B O O O O B I O O O B O O O O B O B O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O B O O O O O O B O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B B O O O O O O O O O O B O B I O O B I O O O O O B I O O O O O B I O B O O O O O O O O O O O O B O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B O O O O O O O O O O B O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B O O B O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B O O O B O O B I O B O O O O O O B O B O O O O O O B B O O O O B B O O O B O O O O O O O O O B O O O O O B O O B I O B O O O O O O O B O O B O B O B I I O O O B B O O O B O O O O O O O O B I O B O O B O B I I O O O O O O O O O O O O O B O O O O O B O B O O O O B I I O O O B O O O O O O B I I O B O O O O O B O O O O B I I O O O O B I I O O O O O O O O O O O O B O O O B O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B O B B O O O O O O O B I O O O O O B O O O B O O O O B B O O O O O B I O O O O O B I I O O O O B O B I I O O B O O O O O B O O B O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B O O O O