The Shifting Sands of Harm: Rechallenging the Prostate Cancer Overtreatment Narrativet

The Shifting Sands of Harm: Rechallenging the Prostate Cancer Overtreatment Narrative

Prostate cancer, the second leading cause of cancer death in men in the United States, is an oncology field uniquely inundated with disturbing and often contradictory narratives surrounding diagnosis and treatment (Siegel et al., 2024). The dominant discourse, heavily influenced by concepts of "overdiagnosis" and "overtreatment," frequently frames the medical intervention for this potentially lethal disease as a fraught calculation of benefit versus harm.1 This framing, while aiming to promote patient autonomy and informed consent, may be inadvertently creating a public health barrier that impedes timely and necessary care, ultimately doing more to hinder service delivery than to benefit men. This analysis, the first in a three-part series, critically examines the historical and persistent narrative of overtreatment in prostate cancer and posits that the failure to update this narrative in light of modern oncological advancements represents a significant, yet speculative, lag in health policy and communication.

The Genesis and Traction of Overdiagnosis

The problem of overdiagnosis—defined as the detection of cancer that would not have become clinically significant or caused death within the patient's lifetime—was recognized in the context of prostate cancer even before the widespread adoption of the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test in the late 1980s (USPSTF, 2012). Autopsy studies from the 1980s and earlier had already revealed a significant reservoir of latent, non-lethal prostate cancer in men who died of other causes (Sakr et al., 1996).2

The term "overdiagnosis" was brought to greater public and academic prominence by figures like H. Gilbert Welch and William C. Black (Welch & Black, 2010; Black, 2000).3 Black, in a 2000 Journal of the National Cancer Institute editorial, highlighted overdiagnosis as an "underrecognized cause of confusion and harm in cancer screening." The widespread diffusion of PSA screening, which began in the mid-1980s, led to a dramatic and rapid increase in prostate cancer incidence—the "epidemic" of diagnosis—which strongly fueled the acceptance of the overdiagnosis concept, as many of these new cases were found to be low-grade and potentially indolent (Etzioni et al., 2002).4 This spike in diagnosis, coupled with the then-standard practice of immediate, aggressive treatment (radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy), cemented the intertwined notion of "overtreatment" (Nam et al., 2012). The narrative gained traction rapidly because it provided a compelling explanation for the rising incidence without a corresponding rise in mortality: the screening was simply finding tumors that never needed finding.

An Antiquated Harm Narrative Versus Modern Advancement

The most frequently cited harms of prostate cancer treatment are urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction. These potential side effects are often presented in informational materials and shared decision-making tools as significant deterrents to screening and treatment (Albertsen et al., 2005). However, a curious feature of this harm-focused communication is the lack of robust, patient-centered data supporting the assertion that fear of these side effects is the primary driver for men declining screening. Men may simply be confused by the conflicting recommendations or dissuaded by the persistent rhetoric of harm.

Crucially, the narrative of "harm" has remained largely static, failing to adapt to significant oncological and technological advancements that occurred primarily between the late 1990s and the 2010s.

1. Active Surveillance (AS): The widespread adoption of Active Surveillance (AS) for men with low-risk, localized disease is the most transformative change. Endorsed by major urological societies, AS directly addresses the overdiagnosis/overtreatment dilemma by monitoring indolent cancer rather than treating it aggressively.5 AS protocols demonstrate that a large fraction of screen-detected cancers can be safely managed conservatively, mitigating the risks of treatment-related morbidity while still reserving curative intervention for cases that show signs of progression (Klotz et al., 2015).6

2. Surgical and Radiation Techniques: Techniques like robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RARP) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) have significantly improved the preservation of functional outcomes, including continence and sexual function, compared to the open surgery and older radiation methods studied in the foundational trials from the 1980s and 1990s (Sanda et al., 2008). While side effects remain a possibility, the frequency and severity have demonstrably decreased. Yet, the public and policy narratives often treat the potential for harm as an immutable risk based on outdated data.

3. Advanced Diagnostics: The routine use of multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpMRI) and fusion-guided biopsies since the mid-2010s has drastically improved the ability to distinguish clinically significant from indolent disease, further refining which men truly need a biopsy and who qualify for AS, thereby directly reducing the rate of overdiagnosis and overtreatment (Kasivisvanathan et al., 2018).

Comparing Narratives: Prostate Versus Breast Cancer

The discourse on overdiagnosis/overtreatment is also prominent in breast cancer screening, but the societal response and policy implications differ remarkably. For breast cancer, overdiagnosis (estimates range from 15% to 25% of screen-detected cases) is generally discussed within the context of preserving the proven mortality benefit of mammography screening (Welch & Black, 2010). The discussion, though complex, is less dominated by a purely alarmist view of harm. Screening is widely endorsed and accepted, and the conversation is focused on improved risk stratification to refine screening intervals and follow-up (Marmot et al., 2013).

In contrast, the prostate cancer narrative often weaponizes the overdiagnosis estimate (historically estimated to be as high as 60% of screen-detected cases) to justify policies that actively discourage screening (Welch & Black, 2010).7 The strong focus on potential treatment harms—incontinence and erectile dysfunction—overshadows the significant and proven mortality reduction demonstrated in major randomized trials (e.g., European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer [ERSPC], which showed a 20% reduction in mortality). The difference in narrative persistence is striking: a significant mortality benefit is often minimized in prostate cancer discussions in favor of emphasizing morbidity, whereas in breast cancer, efforts focus on minimizing morbidity while maximizing the mortality benefit.

The Persistence of the Harm Narrative: A Speculation

The speculation for why the prostate cancer "harm" narrative has not been adequately updated is multifaceted, likely involving behavioral, economic, and cultural factors. First, loss aversion in public health messaging may favor sensational warnings; the potential for a negative outcome (incontinence) is a more visceral and memorable cautionary tale than the long-term, statistical benefit (reduced mortality). Second, professional conflict and differing guidelines among national bodies (e.g., the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force versus urological associations) have maintained a state of public confusion, allowing the simplest, most potent warnings—the side effects—to fill the information vacuum. The open discussion of mastectomy and chemotherapy side effects in breast cancer does not carry the same stigma as the discussion of genitourinary consequences in men.

In conclusion, while concerns about overdiagnosis and overtreatment remain valid and must inform shared decision-making, the current narrative surrounding prostate cancer—heavily fixated on the morbidities of a previous era of medicine—is demonstrably anachronistic. The failure to fully integrate and communicate the impact of Active Surveillance, modern surgical techniques, and advanced diagnostics means that men are being deterred by a risk profile that is no longer reflective of contemporary best practice. This series will continue to investigate how this unbalanced benefit-versus-harm discourse risks becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy, tragically impeding men from accessing potentially life-saving early detection and sophisticated, less-morbid treatment options.

Word Count: 1000

References

Albertsen, P. C., Hanley, J. A., Fine, J. (2005).8 20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA, 293(17), 2095–2101.

Black, W. C. (2000). Overdiagnosis: An underrecognized cause of confusion and harm in cancer screening. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 92(16), 1280–1282.

Etzioni, R., Penson, D. F., Legler, J. M., di Tommaso, D., Boer, R., Gann, P. H., & Feuer, E. J. (2002). Overdiagnosis due to prostate-specific antigen screening: Lessons from U.S. prostate cancer incidence trends.9 Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 94(13), 981–990.

Kasivisvanathan, V., Rannikko, A. S., Borghi, M., Panebianco, V., Mylläri, M., Korsar, R., Tennstedt, P., Young, T., Taimen, P., Montironi, R., Norberg, J., MacRae, S., Law, M., Knowles, M. A., Moore, C. M., & Punwani, S. (2018). MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. New England Journal of Medicine, 378(19), 1767–1777.

Klotz, L., Vesprini, D., Sethukavalan, P., Jethava, V., Zhang, L., Syed, W., Espino, J., & Sugar, L. (2015). Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort: An update. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 33(3), 272–276.

Marmot, M. G., Isham, G., Allgood, P. C., Bassett, L. W., Coulthard, A., Dewar, J. A., ... & Wolstenholme, J. (2013). The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: An independent review. Public Health England.

Nam, R. K., Trachtenberg, J., Klotz, L. H. (2012). Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer.10 ASCO Educational Book, 32, 98–101.

Sakr, W. A., Grignon, D. J., Haas, G. P., Heilbrun, L. K., Pontes, J. E., & Crissman, J. D. (1996).11 Age and racial distribution of prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia. European Urology, 30(2), 138–144.

Sanda, M. G., Dunn, R. L., Michalski, J., Sandler, H. M., Northouse, L., Hembroff, L., ... & Litwin, M. S. (2008). Quality of life and satisfaction with outcome among prostate-cancer survivors. New England Journal of Medicine, 358(12), 1250–1261.

Siegel, R. L., Miller, K. D., Wagle, N. S., & Jemal, A. (2024). Cancer statistics, 2024. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 74(1), 12-49.

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). (2012). Overdiagnosis in Prostate Cancer Screening Decision Models: A Contextual Review for the USPSTF. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Welch, H. G., & Black, W. C. (2010). Overdiagnosis in cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 102(9), 605–613.