October 23, 2011

Vitamins and Other Supplements: An Update

We are often asked about various vitamins and supplements and when important information becomes available, we try to make blog posts to update everyone.  We’ve also decided to summarize some of our thoughts about supplements and this is the result of that effort.  As always, the opinions expressed here are general recommendations and we always encourage a conversation with your physician before you make any changes to previously recommended treatments.

Multivitamins

There is general agreement among physicians that a well-balanced diet provides adequate vitamins and minerals required to maintain health and prevent diseases. Over half of Americans report that they regularly take dietary supplements in an effort to improve their health.  Unfortunately, no studies have documented any benefit from multivitamin supplementation in healthy adults and safety concerns have been raised.

Specific vitamins and supplements

We do not recommend routine supplementation with vitamins A, C, E, folic acid or beta-carotene.

Taking antioxidant vitamins (such as vitamin C and vitamin E) has been promoted as beneficial in prevention of colds, heart attack, stroke and cancer. Unfortunately, none of these illnesses are prevented by taking vitamins. And worse yet, evidence has accumulated that antioxidant vitamins can be harmful. 

A remarkable study from Norway published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2006 rebuffed prior theories that heart attacks could be prevented by antioxidant vitamins and was among the first to raise concerns that these might actually increase heart attack and stroke risk. 

Supplemental beta-carotene, vitamin A and vitamin E may increase risk of death according to a recent JAMA review.  

A study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences demonstrated that taking supplemental vitamin C and vitamin E eliminated one of the major benefits of exercise in healthy men (in this case, the body’s ability to respond to insulin). We described this study in detail in a prior post.

There is no evidence that vitamin E is effective in preventing Alzheimer’s disease or other types of dementia.

A recent review of 67 studies (involving over 230,000 participants) concluded that vitamin C (alone or in combination with other vitamins) did not lower mortality. The same review concluded that vitamin E supplementation (as well as supplementation with vitamin A and beta-carotene) may increase mortality significantly.  

A recent study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine also concluded that the “more is better” approach is not necessarily the best.  They concluded that for adult women, multivitamins, vitamin B6, folic acid, iron, magnesium, zinc and copper all increased mortality in and that calcium supplementation decreased overall risk.

A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association this month also concluded that men who took 400 IU of vitamin E were 17% more likely to develop prostate cancer over 7 years than were those who did not take vitamin E.  An earlier study concluded that vitamin E supplementation increased the risk of death in men.

Earlier studies in smokers found that beta-carotene supplements increased lung cancer risk and the trace mineral selenium has been linked to an increased risk of non-melanoma skin cancer in women and men.

The exceptions


Deficiencies of vitamins B12 and D are linked to many health problems and when low levels are found in lab testing, we often recommend supplementation.  Also, most American adults should probably take a calcium supplement. 



It is very clear that vitamin D is important for bone health (to prevent osteoporosis). Recently, data have suggested that adequate vitamin D levels may also decrease the risk of falling, and prevent colon polyps and cancer and heart attack and may facilitate weight loss in those who are overweight. We’ve reviewed this data and while it’s unlikely that vitamin D is magic, it does seem to be important. Over-the-counter vitamin D supplementation is reasonable for average-risk patients who have a mild vitamin D insufficiency, but a much higher dose (prescription strength) supplement is probably more appropriate in patients at risk for osteoporosis or those with severe deficiency.



Low levels of vitamin B12 can cause anemia and damage to the brain and nerve cells. Symptoms of nerve damage may be present before anemia. They can include numbness or tingling in the fingers and toes, poor balance and coordination, forgetfulness, depression, confusion, difficulty thinking and concentrating, impaired judgment and poor control of impulses, a decreased ability to sense vibration, ringing in the ears (tinnitus), and dementia, a decline in mental abilities that is severe enough to interfere with daily life.

The Bottom Line



With the few exceptions above, vitamin supplements are unnecessary and potentially harmful.  A well-balanced diet coupled with daily exercise is the closest thing to a magic pill for good health.


Written by: Drs. Martin, Schrader and Yates

October 22, 2011

Marilyn Monroe

"It's not true that I had nothing on. I had the radio on."
-- Marilyn Monroe

October 21, 2011

Parents Urged Again to Limit TV for Youngest

Parents of infants and toddlers should limit the time their children spend in front of televisions, computers, self-described educational games and even grown-up shows playing in the background, the American Academy of Pediatrics warned on Tuesday. Video screen time provides no educational benefits for children under age 2 and leaves less room for activities that do, like interacting with other people and playing, the group said.

The recommendation, announced at the group’s annual convention in Boston, is less stringent than its first such warning, in 1999, which called on parents of young children to all but ban television watching for children under 2 and to fill out a “media history” for doctor’s office visits. But it also makes clear that there is no such thing as an educational program for such young children, and that leaving the TV on as background noise, as many households do, distracts both children and adults.

“We felt it was time to revisit this issue because video screens are everywhere now, and the message is much more relevant today that it was a decade ago,” said Dr. Ari Brown, a pediatrician in Austin, Tex., and the lead author of the academy’s policy, which appears in the current issue of the journal Pediatrics.

Dr. Brown said the new policy was less restrictive because “the Academy took a lot of flak for the first one, from parents, from industry, and even from pediatricians asking, ‘What planet do you live on?’ ” The recommendations are an attempt to be more realistic, given that, between TVs, computers, iPads and smartphones, households may have 10 or more screens.

The worry that electronic entertainment is harmful to development goes back at least to the advent of radio and has steadily escalated through the age of “Gilligan’s Island” and 24-hour cable TV to today, when nearly every child old enough to speak is plugged in to something while their parents juggle iPads and texts. So far, there is no evidence that exposure to any of these gadgets causes long-term developmental problems, experts say.

Still, recent research makes it clear that young children learn a lot more efficiently from real interactions — with people and things — than from situations appearing on video screens. “We know that some learning can take place from media” for school-age children, said Georgene Troseth, a psychologist at Peabody College at Vanderbilt University, “but it’s a lot lower, and it takes a lot longer.”

Unlike school-age children, infants and toddlers “just have no idea what’s going on” no matter how well done a video is, Dr. Troseth said.

The new report strongly warns parents against putting a TV in a very young child’s room and advises them to be mindful of how much their own use of media is distracting from playtime. In some surveys between 40 and 60 percent of households report having a TV on for much of the day — which distracts both children and adults, research suggests.

“What we know from recent research on language development is that the more language that comes in — from real people — the more language the child understands and produces later on,” said Kathryn Hirsh-Pasek, a professor of psychology at Temple University.

After the academy’s recommendation was announced, the video industry said parents, not professional organizations, were the best judges. Dan Hewitt, a spokesman for the Entertainment Software Association, said in an e-mail that the group has a “long and recognized record of educating parents about video game content and emphasizing the importance of parental awareness and engagement.”

“We believe that parents should be actively involved in determining the media diets of their children,” he said.

Few parents of small children trying to get through a day can resist plunking the youngsters down in front of the screen now and then, if only so they can take a shower — or check their e-mail.

“We try very hard not to do that, but because both me and my husband work, if we’re at home and have to take a work call, then yes, I’ll try to put her in front of ‘Sesame Street’ for an hour,” Kristin Gagnier, a postgraduate student in Philadelphia, said of her 2-year-old daughter. “But she only stays engaged for about 20 minutes.”

In one survey, 90 percent of parents said their children under 2 watched some from of media, whether a TV show like “Yo Gabba Gabba!” or a favorite iPhone app. While some studies find correlations between overall media exposure and problems with attention and language, no one has determined for certain which comes first.

The new report from the pediatrics association estimates that for every hour a child under 2 spends in front of a screen, he or she spends about 50 minutes less interacting with a parent, and about 10 percent less time in creative play. It recommends that doctors discuss setting “media limits” for babies and toddlers with parents, though it does not specify how much time is too much.

“As always, the children who are most at risk are exactly the very many children in our society who have the fewest resources,” Alison Gopnik, a psychologist at the University of California, said in an e-mail.

Published: October 18, 2011 - New York Times online
By BENEDICT CAREY

October 19, 2011

Clear Minds

"Compelling ideas come into clear minds."
-- Bill O'Reilly

October 15, 2011

An Easier Colonoscopy Prep

Overall, the lifetime risk of developing colorectal cancer is about 1 in 20 (5.1%). The American Cancer Society estimates that there will be almost 150,000 colorectal cancers diagnosed in the United States annually and that approximately 50,000 deaths will result.

What makes this particularly disturbing is that colon cancer is almost entirely preventable when appropriate screening tests are done. Guidelines from professional societies vary but they generally recommend that average-risk adults should begin colorectal cancer screening at age 50 years, utilizing one of several options for screening, among which is colonoscopy. For patients with relatives who have had colon cancer or polyps, earlier screening is recommended.


We have reviewed the data regarding colorectal cancer and screening risks and benefits and we strongly recommend screening using colonoscopy beginning at age 40 rather than 50. Colonoscopy is a very safe procedure and complications are very rare. When polyps are found, they can almost always be removed immediately (during the colonoscopy procedure).


In our experience, the largest barrier to colon cancer screening with colonoscopy is the preparation required. The traditional colonoscopy prep requires that you drink 64 ounces of liquid in two hours and while most patients have no trouble with this, some find it difficult. Fortunately, there is a new product called Suprep which is a much smaller volume to drink.  
So, for those of you who've been putting this off (and you know who you are), it's time to act!

If you’ve questions about this, please contact us. We’re happy to discuss this important issue further and to help make arrangements to protect you from this devastating disease.

Written by: Scott W. Yates, MD, MBA, MS, FACP 

October 11, 2011

Predicting the Future

"The best way to predict the future is to invent it."
-- Alan Kay

"I never think of the future - it comes soon enough."
-- Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)

"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future."
-- Niels Bohr (1885 - 1962)

"Predicting the future is easy. It's trying to figure out what's going on now that's hard."
-- Fritz Dressler

October 9, 2011

It's Time for Flu Vaccine

There has been a great deal of information in the media concerning the influenza vaccine in the last few years, stemming from the H1N1 virus.  This will continue to be an important topic in the next 6 months as we enter flu season.  Many people are anxious to receive the latest vaccine to prevent infection.  Although vaccination is encouraged by doctors, there are concerns that vaccination too early may cause problems.  The outbreak of the seasonal influenza virus generally occurs at the end of October or early November.  The disease has a peak in February and generally is gone by spring (though in Texas we see cases often into April).  This means there is a risk of infection lasting 6-7 months.

Considering the flu season is about 7 months, it’s important to give the vaccine early enough to cover the initial outbreak, but not so early that the effects wear off before the season has run its course.  This generally means giving the vaccine in October.  An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure - if the prevention is given at the right time.


Written by: Michael C. Martin, MD

October 8, 2011

Steve Jobs (1955 - 2011)

“Why join the navy if you can be a pirate?”
-- Steve Jobs, 1982

"When you’re a carpenter making a beautiful chest of drawers, you’re not going to use a piece of plywood on the back, even though it faces the wall and nobody will ever see it. You’ll know it’s there, so you’re going to use a beautiful piece of wood on the back. For you to sleep well at night, the aesthetic, the quality, has to be carried all the way through.”
-- Steve Jobs, 1985

“Being the richest man in the cemetery doesn’t matter to me … Going to bed at night saying we’ve done something wonderful… that’s what matters to me.”
-- Steve Jobs, 1993

“I am saddened, not by Microsoft’s success — I have no problem with their success. They’ve earned their success, for the most part. I have a problem with the fact that they just make really third-rate products.”
-- Steve Jobs, 1996

"It's really hard to design products by focus groups. A lot of times, people don't know what they want until you show it to them."
-- Steve Jobs, 1998

“Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven’t found it yet, keep looking. Don’t settle. As with all matters of the heart, you’ll know when you find it. And, like any great relationship, it just gets better and better as the years roll on. So keep looking until you find it. Don’t settle.”
-- Steve Jobs, 2005

“Remembering that I’ll be dead soon is the most important tool I’ve ever encountered to help me make the big choices in life. Because almost everything — all external expectations, all pride, all fear of embarrassment or failure — these things just fall away in the face of death, leaving only what is truly important. Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose. You are already naked. There is no reason not to follow your heart...Stay hungry.  Stay foolish.”
-- Steve Jobs, 2005

“No one wants to die. Even people who want to go to heaven don’t want to die to get there. And yet death is the destination we all share. No one has ever escaped it. And that is as it should be, because Death is very likely the single best invention of Life. It is Life’s change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new. Right now the new is you, but someday not too long from now, you will gradually become the old and be cleared away. Sorry to be so dramatic, but it is quite true."
-- Steve Jobs, 2005

October 7, 2011

More Controversy about PSA Screening for Prostate Cancer

The Wall Street Journal (and others) report that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force will recommend against screening for prostate cancer using the PSA blood test having apparently concluded that more harm than benefit results from testing.

This recommendation will certainly be controversial.  This is the same panel that recently recommended that women not do breast self examination and that screening mammography not be offered to women between ages 40 and 50.  Those recommendations have not been widely adopted.


Here are a few of the articles discussing this change:



Panel Faults Widely Used Prostate-Cancer Test
By JENNIFER CORBETT DOOREN And THOMAS M. BURTON
Published: October 7, 2011 - Wall Street Journal online


A key federal advisory panel is poised to recommend that healthy men shouldn't be screened with a widely used blood test for prostate cancer, indicating that the test offers more harm than benefit.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force will recommend a "D" rating for prostate specific antigen, or PSA, testing, said a person familiar with the draft document. A "D" rating means "there is moderate or high certainty that the service has no net benefit or that the harms outweigh the benefits," according to the group's website. It also is a recommendation to "discourage use" of test or treatment.

The task force is set to make its proposal Tuesday, and then allow for a four-week comment period before issuing a final recommendation.

The task force is an influential group whose recommendations can influence coverage decisions by the federal Medicare program and other insurers.

The scientific findings behind the recommendation are scheduled to be published Monday by the Annals of Internal Medicine. A copy of the paper was obtained by the newsletter Cancer Letter, which posted the paper on its website Thursday night.

The paper concluded that after about 10 years, PSA screening "results in small or no reduction" in death from prostate cancer but is "associated with harms," including biopsies, other tests and treatments, "some of which may be unnecessary."

Virginia A. Moyer, who chairs the task force,declined to comment on what the updated advisory would be. She noted that the current guidance is that the evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against screening in men younger than 75. That recommendation was last updated in August 2008. "New evidence has become available, and we had to reconsider our statement," Dr. Moyer said.

The new report is the latest in a long-running controversy over the value of PSA screening. Advocates say the test, when given regularly to men age 50 and over, facilitates the discovery of the cancer at an early stage, improving the chances of successful treatment. Critics say the test has a significant rate of false positives—apparent detection of cancer that isn't confirmed with further tests—or that it identifies so-called indolent tumors that are ultimately of little health consequence. This leads to unnecessary biopsies and cancer treatments.

Because such interventions can lead to infections, impotence and incontinence, critics say the risks of testing often outweigh the benefit.



U.S. Panel Says No to Prostate Screening for Healthy Men
By GARDINER HARRIS
Published: October 6, 2011 - New York Times online

Healthy men should no longer receive a P.S.A. blood test to screen for prostate cancer because the test does not save lives over all and often leads to more tests and treatments that needlessly cause pain, impotence and incontinence in many, a key government health panel has decided.

The draft recommendation, by the United States Preventive Services Task Force and due for official release next week, is based on the results of five well-controlled clinical trials and could substantially change the care given to men 50 and older. There are 44 million such men in the United States, and 33 million of them have already had a P.S.A. test — sometimes without their knowledge — during routine physicals.

The task force’s recommendations are followed by most medical groups. Two years ago the task force recommended that women in their 40s should no longer get routine mammograms, setting off a firestorm of controversy. The recommendation to avoid the P.S.A. test is even more forceful and applies to healthy men of all ages.

“Unfortunately, the evidence now shows that this test does not save men’s lives,” said Dr. Virginia Moyer, a professor of pediatrics at Baylor College of Medicine and chairwoman of the task force. “This test cannot tell the difference between cancers that will and will not affect a man during his natural lifetime. We need to find one that does.”

But advocates for those with prostate cancer promised to fight the recommendation. Baseball’s Joe Torre, the financier Michael Milken and Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, are among tens of thousands of men who believe a P.S.A. test saved their lives.

The task force can also expect resistance from some drug makers and doctors. Treating men with high P.S.A. levels has become a lucrative business. Some in Congress have criticized previous decisions by the task force as akin to rationing, although the task force does not consider cost in its recommendations.

“We’re disappointed,” said Thomas Kirk, of Us TOO, the nation’s largest advocacy group for prostate cancer survivors. “The bottom line is that this is the best test we have, and the answer can’t be, ‘Don’t get tested.’ ”

But that is exactly what the task force is recommending. There is no evidence that a digital rectal exam or ultrasound are effective, either. “There are no reliable signs or symptoms of prostate cancer,” said Dr. Timothy J. Wilt, a member of the task force and a professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota. Frequency and urgency of urinating are poor indicators of disease, since the cause is often benign.

The P.S.A. test, routinely given to men 50 and older, measures a protein — prostate-specific antigen — that is released by prostate cells, and there is little doubt that it helps identify the presence of cancerous cells in the prostate. But a vast majority of men with such cells never suffer ill effects because their cancer is usually slow-growing. Even for men who do have fast-growing cancer, the P.S.A. test may not save them since there is no proven benefit to earlier treatment of such invasive disease.

As the P.S.A. test has grown in popularity, the devastating consequences of the biopsies and treatments that often flow from the test have become increasingly apparent. From 1986 through 2005, one million men received surgery, radiation therapy or both who would not have been treated without a P.S.A. test, according to the task force. Among them, at least 5,000 died soon after surgery and 10,000 to 70,000 suffered serious complications. Half had persistent blood in their semen, and 200,000 to 300,000 suffered impotence, incontinence or both. As a result of these complications, the man who developed the test, Dr. Richard J. Ablin, has called its widespread use a “public health disaster.”

One in six men in the United States will eventually be found to have prostate cancer, making it the second most common form of cancer in men after skin cancer. An estimated 32,050 men died of prostate cancer last year and 217,730 men received the diagnosis. The disease is rare before age 50, and most deaths occur after age 75.

Not knowing what is going on with one’s prostate may be the best course, since few men live happily with the knowledge that one of their organs is cancerous. Autopsy studies show that a third of men ages 40 to 60 have prostate cancer, a share that grows to three-fourths after age 85.

P.S.A. testing is most common in men over 70, and it is in that group that it is the most dangerous since such men usually have cancerous prostate cells but benefit the least from surgery and radiation. Some doctors treat patients who have high P.S.A. levels with drugs that block male hormones, although there is no convincing evidence that these drugs are helpful in localized prostate cancer and they often result in impotence, breast enlargement and hot flashes.

Of the trials conducted to assess the value of P.S.A. testing, the two largest were conducted in Europe and the United States. Both “demonstrate that if any benefit does exist, it is very small after 10 years,” according to the task force’s draft recommendation statement.

The European trial had 182,000 men from seven countries who either got P.S.A. testing or did not. When measured across all of the men in the study, P.S.A. testing did not cut death rates in nine years of follow-up. But in men ages 55 to 69, there was a very slight improvement in mortality. The American trial, with 76,693 men, found that P.S.A. testing did not cut death rates after 10 years.

Dr. Eric Klein of the Cleveland Clinic, an expert in prostate cancer, said he disagreed with the task force’s recommendations. Citing the European trial, he said “I think there’s a substantial amount of evidence from randomized clinical trials that show that among younger men, under 65, screening saves lives.”

The task force’s recommendations apply only to healthy men without symptoms. The group did not consider whether the test is appropriate in men who already have suspicious symptoms or those who have already been treated for the disease. The recommendations will be open to public comment next week before they are finalized.

Recommendations of the task force often determine whether federal health programs like Medicare and private health plans envisioned under the health reform law pay fully for a test. But legislation already requires Medicare to pay for P.S.A. testing no matter what the task force recommends.

Still, the recommendations will most likely be greeted with trepidation by the Obama administration, which has faced charges from Republicans that it supports rationing of health care services, which have been politically effective, regardless of the facts.

After the task force’s recommendation against routine mammograms for women under 50, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sibelius announced that the government would continue to pay for the test for women in their 40s. On Thursday, the administration announced with great fanfare that as a result of the health reform law, more people with Medicare were getting free preventive services like mammograms.

Dr. Michael Rawlins, chairman of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in Britain, said he was given a P.S.A. test several years ago without his knowledge. He then had a biopsy, which turned out to be negative. But if cancer had been detected, he would have faced an awful choice, he said: “Would I want to have it removed, or would I have gone for watchful waiting with all the anxieties of that?” He said he no longer gets the test.

But Dan Zenka, a spokesman for the Prostate Cancer Foundation, said a high P.S.A. test result eventually led him to have his prostate removed, a procedure that led to the discovery that cancer had spread to his lymph nodes. His organization supports widespread P.S.A. testing. “I can tell you it saved my life,” he said. 


Answering Questions About the P.S.A. Test
By TARA PARKER-POPE
Published: October 6, 2011 - New York Times online


News that an influential panel of experts is advising healthy men not to be screened for prostate cancer with a widely used test is certain to cause confusion and anxiety among men and their doctors, and reignites a debate about the benefits and risks of screening tests.

The recommendations, to be officially announced on Tuesday by the United States Preventive Services Task Force, affect more than 44 million men age 50 and older who typically are candidates for a simple blood screen call the prostate-specific antigen (P.S.A.) test.

The panel, which already recommends against P.S.A. screening for men age 75 and older, will cite recent research suggesting that the testing does not save lives but does lead to unnecessary treatments that can cause impotence, incontinence and a number of other complications.

Here are some answers to common questions about P.S.A. testing and what the task force recommendations mean for men.

Will the new recommendations prevent me from getting a P.S.A. test if I want one?

No. Whether to be screened for prostate cancer is still a decision that each man must make for himself with the advice of a doctor he trusts. But now that the independent panel has taken a stand, many doctors who were ambivalent or opposed to P.S.A. testing may be more willing to express their own doubts about the test and to advise patients against it.

What if I have a family history of prostate cancer or worrisome symptoms? Should I still be checked for cancer?

The panel’s advice is based on studies of healthy men. Men who have symptoms related to prostate health should always be seen by a doctor; the task force did not address whether P.S.A. testing is appropriate for them. And men with a strong family history of prostate cancer may have more to gain from screening than men at low risk, so they also should discuss the issue with their physician.

In addition, a man who already has prostate cancer that has been diagnosed or treated is likely to continue to undergo P.S.A. testing, which can help doctors determine whether cancer has returned or is spreading.

What do other groups say about P.S.A. testing?

Most major medical groups have not taken a stand against routine P.S.A. screening and say it is a decision a man should discuss with his doctor. The American Cancer Society suggests that the conversation start at age 50 for most men, earlier for African-Americans and men with a strong family history of prostate cancer.

The American Urological Association recommends that P.S.A. screening be offered to men 40 or older. Most organizations discourage prostate cancer screening for men with less than 10 years life expectancy.

Why not get screened? Isn’t it always better to find cancer early?

The argument against P.S.A. testing is that prostate cancer is typically so slow growing that most men would be just fine if they never knew it was there. But once cancer is detected, it is psychologically difficult for a man to do nothing.

As a result, tens of thousands of men each year are left impotent and incontinent as a result of aggressive treatment for a cancer that would never have caused them harm. But it is impossible to tell which men have comparatively benign cancer and which men have aggressive cancer. As a result, many doctors believe the overall benefits of screening outweigh the negatives.

How much weight do the task force recommendations carry?

The task force is an independent panel of experts in prevention and primary care appointed by the federal Department of Health and Human Services. While the group only makes recommendations, a change by the task force often prompts other organizations to review their guidelines and can influence how insurance companies reimburse for certain services.

But the influence of the panel is often determined by how controversial its recommendations are. Two years ago, for instance, the task force concluded that healthy women under age 50 should no longer get annual mammograms. That recommendation was met with strong resistance by many cancer organizations, women and their doctors, many of whom continue to ignore it.

And even though the panel has already recommended that men over age 75 not undergo P.S.A. testing, many men and their doctors continue the practice. Earlier this year, the Journal of Clinical Oncology reported that men ages 80 to 85 are being screened as often as those 30 years younger. The task force’s advice is not necessarily the final word.