Men: Consider a “manogram” for prostate cancer screening

Men’s health issues are underfunded and overlooked by mainstream medicine—especially prostate cancer. In fact, as I’ve written here before, the mainstream still relies on the flawed and outdated prostate specific antigen (PSA) test to screen for prostate cancer, despite its astounding 75 percent false-positive rate.

In my view, this test, with its dreadful track record, has most certainly caused millions of men to undergo unnecessary, uncomfortable, painful, debilitating, and humiliating biopsies of the prostate. And it’s contributed to creating an epidemic of “fake” prostate cancer.

But—here’s a bit of good news…

A promising, new prostate cancer screening test called fast, biparametric (bp) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) could replace the PSA test and help men avoid unnecessary biopsies. It could also serve as a helpful tool in monitoring men after they’ve been diagnosed with prostate cancer, allowing for more confidence in the “watchful waiting” approach.

Basically, the new test is a pared-down MRI that omits the potentially harmful contrast medium and takes only eight minutes to perform. The developers call it a “manogram.” And they recently presented findings about its potential usefulness to European urologists…

Manogram could save men from “fake cancer” diagnoses

Researchers from Radboud University Medical Center in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, recently compared traditional MRI screening to the “manogram” for detection of prostate cancer among nearly 630 men who had not been biopsied before.

Both tests accurately detected actual prostate cancer in 95 percent of cases. Which means they only missed real cancers 5 percent of the time. Plus, the new test only had a  35 percent “false-positive” rate—where they delivered a positive diagnosis, when no cancer was actually present. (Remember, the PSA test has an astounding 75 percent false-positive rate.) While the new test does cost more than the PSA, it costs 54 percent less than traditional MRIs.

Despite these clear benefits, insurance companies like Aetna and Cigna are resisting covering manograms to help in the diagnosis process. Which is a real shame, as they could really help reduce the overdiagnosis epidemic created by the PSA screening.

Dr. Alexander Kutikov, a prostate cancer specialist in Philadelphia, agrees. In a recent interview, he said, “I tell my patients that one of the biggest risks they face in this whole process is overdiagnosis of a low-risk cancer, a cancer that has a mortality rate of less than 1 percent, a cancer that actually puts them on the hook for care that has very little value but creates a lot of anxiety.”

He also explained that another advantage to the manogram is its ability to measure the actual size of the prostate, without having to surgically biopsy it or cut it out. Plus, knowing the size of the prostate gland allows for a more meaningful interpretation of the PSA reading and would potentially help allow a more scientific approach to sampling and studying the prostate gland, when prostate biopsies are actually performed.

Right now, it’s unclear how widely available this new screening test will actually be. And if most prostate cancers don’t require treatment anyway, most insurance companies probably won’t be helping with the bill. But if you and your physician decide screening is appropriate for you—perhaps you have a family history of the disease—then you should consider your options. And that includes asking about a manogram…especially if you’re already facing a potential biopsy instead.

Whether or not you choose to get a manogram, there are many safe, natural ways to protect your prostate. In fact, I’ve put together an entire comprehensive, science-backed protocol that covers everything you need to know about conquering prostate cancer, banishing an enlarged prostate, and maximizing your manhood. To learn more about my Insider’s Ultimate Guide to Perfect Prostate Health, or to enroll today, click here now.

Source:

“Could a ‘Manogram’ Replace a Prostate Biopsy?” Medscape, 8/1/19 (medscape.com/viewarticle/916297)


CLOSE
CLOSE