Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Classified ads
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2021
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Classified ads
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2021
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Letters

Guidelines should be assessed based on the underlying evidence

Peter R. Carroll and J. Kellogg Parsons
CMAJ August 06, 2019 191 (31) E871; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.72508
Peter R. Carroll
Professor and chair, Department of Urology, UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, Calif.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
J. Kellogg Parsons
Professor and endowed chair for clinical research, Department of Urology; director of genitourinary clinical and translational research, Moores UCSD Comprehensive Cancer Center, UC San Diego Health, La Jolla, Calif.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

On behalf of the membership of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Prostate Cancer Early Detection Panel, we disagree with the assertions of Drs. Jatoi and Sah that the NCCN guidelines drive the overuse of health care services and conflict with evidence-based recommendations of other independent organizations.1

Without specific evidence, Drs. Jatoi and Sah argue that, through its advocacy of population-based prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for early detection of prostate cancer in selected, well-informed men, the NCCN guideline2 serves the financial interests of providers rather than patients. They extol the recommendations of “independent” multidisciplinary panels, including the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF),3 and assert that, unlike these panels, the NCCN promotes recommendations biased in favour of specialists.

However, the authors fail to note that the USPSTF currently recommends consideration of PSA screening as part of shared decision-making for men aged 55 to 69 years.3 This inconsistency in their argument is troubling. Moreover, they cite 2 outdated recommendations against PSA screening — from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care of 20144 and the European Society for Medical Oncology Consensus Panel of 20125 — that do not incorporate the latest level I evidence (from at least 1 properly randomized controlled trial) on this topic.

The NCCN guideline is updated at least annually and includes detailed information on who and how to screen. The current guideline addresses the benefits and harms of screening and is clear on several relevant issues: in alignment with the USPSTF recommendations, the decision to undertake screening is shared between patient and provider; patients in poor health and with limited life expectancy should not be screened; in those with an elevated PSA level, alternatives to prostate biopsy exist that substantially reduce the risk of unnecessary biopsies; active surveillance is the appropriate form of treatment for many men diagnosed with prostate cancer; and optimal guidelines for those who are black or those with a family history of disease remain undefined, but these groups should be considered for early assessment.2

Furthermore, the NCCN guideline notes that the rationale for considering screening at an earlier age is based on data showing the following: a baseline serum PSA level at age 45 is a strong predictor of the future risk of lethal prostate cancer; there is less confounding of the PSA level by benign prostatic hyperplasia at earlier ages; a small but important number of men already have high-risk or advanced prostate cancer by their early 50s; and screening can be tailored to baseline risk (i.e., lower PSA level at younger ages allows for less frequent PSA testing). The guideline also points out that, based on serum PSA levels in men in their 60s, many may safely stop screening at age 70 years.2

Guidelines for screening for any cancer should not simply be attributed to specialty bias, but assessed based on the strength, currency and depth of the evidence on which they are based.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: Peter Carroll and J. Kellogg Parsons are members of the NCCN Prostate Cancer Early Detection Panel.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Jatoi I,
    2. Sah S
    . Clinical practice guidelines and the overuse of health care services: need for reform. CMAJ 2019;191:E297–8.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    NCCN guidelines & clinical resources — prostate cancer early detection (version 1). Plymouth Meeting (PA): National Comprehensive Cancer Network; 2019. Available: www.nccn.org/store/login/login.aspx?ReturnURL=https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/prostate_detection.pdf (accessed 2019 Mar. 4). Login required to access content.
  3. ↵
    US Preventive Services Task ForceGrossman DC, Curry SJ, Owens DK, et al. Screening for prostate cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA 2018; 319: 1901–13.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    Prostate cancer (2014). Ottawa: Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. Available: https://canadiantaskforce.ca/guidelines/published-guidelines/prostate-cancer (accessed 2019 Mar. 24).
  5. ↵
    1. Horwich A,
    2. Hugosson J,
    3. de Reijke T,
    4. et al.
    European Society for Medical Oncology. Prostate cancer: ESMO Consensus Conference guidelines 2012. Ann Oncol 2013;24:1141–62.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 191 (31)
CMAJ
Vol. 191, Issue 31
6 Aug 2019
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

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.
Guidelines should be assessed based on the underlying evidence
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Guidelines should be assessed based on the underlying evidence
Peter R. Carroll, J. Kellogg Parsons
CMAJ Aug 2019, 191 (31) E871; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.72508

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Guidelines should be assessed based on the underlying evidence
Peter R. Carroll, J. Kellogg Parsons
CMAJ Aug 2019, 191 (31) E871; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.72508
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Clinical practice guidelines and the overuse of health care services: need for reform
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • A safe return to sport and the right to play during COVID-19
  • Simple-language tool to guide patients in recovery after prolonged treatment in the intensive care unit
  • The authors respond to: “Delayed discharge and frailty, delirium and functional decline”
Show more Letters

Similar Articles

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions

Copyright 2021, Joule Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of the resources on this site in an accessible format, please contact us at cmajgroup@cmaj.ca.

Powered by HighWire