Tag: Daniel Stone

Personal and Professional Choices in PSA Testing: A Teaching Moment

Jun 6, 2025

By KELLI DEETER

I was intrigued by Daniel Stone’s piece on THCB in May titled “Biden’s cancer diagnosis as a teaching moment”. In my practice as a board-certified nurse practitioner, I am frequently asked about prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing by my male patients.

Nursing practice and medical practice often get blurred or lumped together. In the state of Colorado, nurse practitioners practice under their own license, and can independently diagnose and treat patients. In some settings where I have worked, I found myself frequently correcting patients who refer to me as ‘doctor’. “I am not a medical doctor, I am a nurse practitioner,” is repeated by me multiples of times per day. In this discussion of PSA testing, I want to share my decisions to order or not to order PSA testing for individuals, based on my nursing training.

It is important to refer to the guidelines for PSA testing recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), and published by the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). The last updates made to the guidelines were in 2018. It is key to remember that these are guidelines, and that medical doctors, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners use these guidelines in their consideration of the patient. In nursing, a holistic and team approach with the patient’s preferences, history, cultural considerations, and desired outcome are all weighted in decision making for assessment, testing, referral, and treatment. Guidelines are just that, a GUIDE, not an absolute.

Guidelines state that for patients aged 55-69: Screening offers a small potential benefit of reducing the chance of death from prostate cancer in some men. However, many men will experience potential harms of screening, including false-positive results that require additional testing and possible prostate biopsy; overdiagnosis and overtreatment; and treatment complications, such as incontinence and erectile dysfunction… Clinicians should not screen men who do not express a preference for screening. And for patients aged 70 and older: The USPSTF recommends against PSA-based screening for prostate cancer. This does not mean that we as providers should not test men younger than 55 or older than 70. We need to look at each patient case independently of one another and not lump everyone together.

Additionally, patients may not know how to “express a preference for screening”. It is imperative that providers have the allotted time to explore their family history of prostate and other cancers, explain to them the benefits and risks of testing, listen to and discuss their signs and symptoms, perform a digital rectal exam (DRE) if appropriate and agreed on by the patient, take into consideration their medication regimen and their age, as well as if they would want treatment or not. Certainly, if they are symptomatic, and a new medication for their symptoms is being prescribed, or if they are symptomatic and a DRE is obtained that is abnormal, a PSA should be obtained with the patient’s approval to establish a baseline, and a follow-up appointment made with repeat labs or referral, if desired by the patient. If there is a family history of prostate cancer, an early PSA screening test to establish a baseline might be preferable. Again, patient preferences must be taken into account.

People have very different feelings about western medicine and about what they want for themselves and their bodies. We must realize that just because someone has an ever increasing PSA with or without symptoms, they may not agree to a DRE or to referral to urology, surgery, or oncology. As a provider, we should obtain a refusal of recommended care. It is ok to not want testing, follow-up, or treatment, no matter one’s age. In Biden’s case, there had been no PSA testing since 2014, during his vice presidency. The fact that no reason was given is irrelevant, in 2014 he was 72 years old. Guidelines are not to test starting at age 70. The PSA level if drawn may not have aƯected his health outcome or treatment, but it may have affected the outcome of his nomination for the presidency, thus politicizing nursing and medical practice. Pointing fingers now at the past changes nothing. I agree with Stone, that this is a teaching moment: advocate for yourself as a patient, advocate for your patient as a provider, and consider that so much of one’s health is a personal choice and that it should be honored and protected.

I agree with Peter Attia’s contention in his May 24, 2024, A timely though tragic lesson on prostate cancer screening, that the PSA screening guidelines are out of date; the last revision was in 2018. Attia indicates many men remain healthy and live well past the age of 80, and aggressive cancers if caught early and treated, will better benefit the patient’s quality of life and length of life. I would also argue this is true of screening earlier in life, at age 50. Access to health care is an issue for many in our society. Marginalized populations such as the indigent, homeless, geriatric, mentally ill, and incarcerated experience greater disparities, and have a higher risk of missing any PSA testing at all. In my work as a nurse practitioner in the correctional system, for individuals entering jails and prisons this is often the first time they have ever seen a healthcare provider. These individuals often have a history of indigence, homelessness, and/or mental illness. Additionally, new cancer diagnoses are increasing and for men; 29% of new cancer types are prostate.

Age 50 is a milestone for most individuals, and they know they are supposed to get screening for colorectal cancer at this age as well as other screening tests. Consolidating care by capturing a PSA at this same time would establish an early baseline; there is never a guarantee that a patient with healthcare access issues will ever return for another appointment, due to finances, transportation, fear, or other factors. Another consideration for revising the PSA screening guidelines is lowering the threshold for PSA levels based on patient age that drive referral to urology for imaging, and putting simple language into the guidelines to look at a two-fold increase in PSA over 6-12 weeks as likely urgent referral to urology. Initiating early watchful waiting with PSA screening has the potential for saving more lives and maintaining desired qualities of life.

Kelli Deeter is a board-certified family nurse practitioner with 12 years of experience in geriatrics, rehabilitation, correction, women’s health, mental health, and complex chronic care.

Biden’s cancer diagnosis should be a teaching moment

May 30, 2025

By DANIEL STONE

Joe Biden’s metastatic cancer diagnosis brings together two controversial issues: PSA testing for prostate cancer and presidential politics. To understand what is at stake Americans need basic information about PSA testing, and a frank discussion of the reasoning behind the prostate cancer screening decisions in the former president’s case. The dribble of information we’ve gotten only creates more uncomfortable questions for Biden and his family. The absence of adequate explanation also fails to contribute to public appreciation of these important medical issues.

The prostate, a walnut-shaped gland at the base of the bladder, produces “prostate specific antigen,” or PSA. Chemically classed as a glycoprotein, a sugar/protein aggregate, it leaks from the prostate into the blood, where its level can be measured with routine blood testing.

As men age, the prostate enlarges, increasing PSA levels. Screening tests take advantage of the fact that prostate cancer usually leaks more PSA than normal prostate tissue. And in the case of prostate cancer, the PSA typically rises relatively fast.

Beyond these basic facts, the PSA story becomes hazy. Although an elevated PSA may signal cancer, most men with an elevated PSA have benign prostate enlargement, not prostate cancer. Worse yet for screening, many men with prostate cancer have a mild and slow-moving disease that requires no treatment. They coexist with their disease rather than dying of it. This fact leads to the old adage that prostate cancer is the disease of long-lived popes and Supreme Court justices.

Medical advisory panels view PSA screening with skepticism partly due to the challenges of distinguishing benign PSA elevations from those related to cancer. Confirming a suspected cancer diagnosis requires prostate biopsies that can be painful and can produce side effects. Additionally, once a diagnosis is made, patients who might have coexisted with their disease may needlessly be subject to the harms of treatment, such as radiation and surgery. Finally, the benefits of early treatment of prostate cancer have been difficult to prove in clinical studies.

For all these reasons medical advisory panels have discouraged widespread testing or recommend a nuanced approach with careful discussion of risk and benefits between patients and their

Despite these concerns, the pendulum has swung toward more PSA testing in recent years. One reason is that improvements in radiographic imaging, such as MRI, allow for “active surveillance” that can track early lesions for signs of spread, allowing doctors to distinguish between relatively benign cases of prostate cancer and those likely to progress. Interventions can then be directed more specifically to those at high risk.

In my medical practice, I have generally been an advocate for prostate cancer screening despite the controversy surrounding the clinical benefits. My experience leads me to believe that early diagnosis improves prognosis. But even without improved medical outcomes, patients and their families still benefit from early diagnosis for the purposes of planning. No one wants to be sideswiped by a late-stage symptomatic disease that limits both clinical and life choices.

Doctors Must Fight the RFK Nomination

Jan 29, 2025

By DANIEL STONE

As a doctor, I consider Secretary Xavier Becerra and his Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to be allies of practitioners like me. The behemoth federal agency administers Medicare and Medicaid, the Food and Drug Administration, and an army of public health workers. The Surgeon General, symbolic leader of the nation’s healthcare providers, reports to HHS. For decades, the Department has supported medical science in safeguarding the public’s health. Now that sacred trust faces the threat of Donald Trump’s nomination of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to run HHS.

RFK’s first problem is a stunning lack of qualifications. After a laudable triumph over drug addiction, he used his legal background to work on environmental protection. Kennedy never held a federal government position nor administered any public agency. He now appears poised for on-the-job training at an agency with 80,000 employees and a $1.7 Trillion budget. In contrast, Becerra served for years in Congress and on its Health Sub-Committee. He also served as State Attorney General, managing 4,800 employees. The qualification issue is not political. During Trump’s first term, his last HHS secretary, Alex Azar, had served as HHS general counsel and president of pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly. RFK has nothing remotely resembling his would-be predecessors’ qualifications.

Unfortunately, RFK’s shortcomings go well beyond mere lack of qualification. His distortions and public denials of established medical science infuriate practitioners like me. He casts baseless doubt on the well-established benefits of vaccines and on the polio vaccine in particular. Despite the seven decades since polio vaccine’s introduction, doctors still see patients who were infected before it was available. My patient Donna, born in 1955, counts herself among this group. She wears leg braces and often struggles with daily activities. For me, she symbolizes those who by accident of birth or happenstance missed the profound benefits of vaccines that RFK now disparages.

What Is a “Co-Presidency”? Would It Work? Biden-Obama 2020

Jan 31, 2018• 8

By DANIEL STONE, MD

Why would the last certifiably sane occupant of the White House consider a run for the Vice-Presidency, an office that Vice-President John Nance Garner derided as “not worth a pitcher of warm spit” and John Adams scorned as “the most insignificant office that the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived?” In a word, Trump. The former President told voters in 2016 that his legacy and life’s work would be threatened by a Trump presidency. That would be doubly true of a second Trump term.

Federal law poses no obstacle to the Democrats’ dream ticket. The 22nd amendment, ratified in the wake of FDR’s four electoral victories, prohibits the election of a president to more than two terms. No provision prevents a former president from assuming the office through succession nor from running for the vice-presidency. Securing Obama’s assent for the race would likely require Biden to offer him a virtual “co-presidency.” The notion has been raised before. In 1980, Ronald Reagan, also facing a challenging run against an incumbent president, briefly considered former President Gerald Ford for his running mate and “co-president.” Ultimately, Reagan lacked sufficient comfort with his former opponent to test such uncharted political waters.

The Pri(n)ce of Healthcare

Jul 28, 2017• 21

By DANIEL STONE, MD

Tom Price, President Trump’s new Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) strode to the podium to the sound of applause. The two thousand medical administrators and physicians at the annual meeting of CAPG, a trade organization representing physician groups, heard him described as the most influential person affecting the 300+ participating groups that provide care for millions. Only the third physician to lead HHS, many hoped that the orthopedist and six term GOP congressman would bring new sophistication to the federal government’s healthcare programs.

The perfectly coiffed Secretary looked every bit the new man in charge of healthcare. Sadly, his resonant voice soon dashed any hope for substance. He might have commented on the essential U.S. healthcare quandary: A country with average household income of $56,000 can’t afford the $15,000 annual cost of health insurance for a family of four. Neither Republicans nor Democrats can conjure up inexpensive insurance that covers unaffordable healthcare services. What does the Secretary think? He sidestepped the issue, twice patting his audience on the back by touting the American health system as “the finest in the world.” Seriously? If Price had attended the morning session he would have heard that the U.S. spends about 6% more of its GDP on healthcare than average developed country. That extra $1.2 trillion amounts to more than twice the defense budget. Yet U.S. health outcomes for crucial measures like infant mortality and lifespan rank average or even worse. Yes, U.S. medical technology leads the world and foreign dignitaries still travel here for world class, high tech care. But shouldn’t the secretary of HHS understand that the measure of a healthcare system is the quality and accessibility of care provided to average citizens? Continue reading…

Beyond “Repeal and Replace”

Jul 5, 2017• 8

BY DANIEL STONE, MD

The toxic polarization of Washington politics might lead even the most stubborn optimist to abandon any hope for bipartisanship on healthcare. Despite endemic pessimism, the flagging efforts to forge a Republican consensus on “repeal and replace” might set the stage for overdue efforts at compromise. Congress will be tempted to move on to more promising areas such as tax reform and infrastructure funding. That temptation should be resisted. The threat to the nation posed by the current state of American healthcare calls for Congress to resurrect the long lost spirit of bold bipartisanship.

Before considering opportunities for compromise, the obstacles confronting the GOP reform efforts are worth considering. Republicans face the same stubborn reality that confronted the framers of the Affordable Care Act (ACA): Expensive services cannot be covered by cheap insurance. The cost of U.S. healthcare has simply priced low income and even middle income individuals out of health insurance. Without subsides, they get left behind. The Congressional Budget Office’s estimated that the Ryan plan would result in 24 million losing coverage underscored the political divide: Confronted with unmanageable healthcare costs, most Republicans would opt to reduce public expense whereas Democrats plus a handful of Republican moderates prefer more extensive coverage. The effort of the GOP leadership to split the difference by preserving some residual subsidies and the structures supporting them—“Obamacare light”—remains unacceptable to many on the right. No clear middle ground has yet emerged.