Post Edited (clocknut) : 3/4/2015 8:45:02 AM (GMT-7)
Don’t waste time or energy trying to re-define “overtreatment.”
Understandably, re-defining provides a means for some to minimize the unpleasant notion of prostate cancer overtreatment. Minimization is a common tactic involving denial coupled with rationalization in situations where complete denial is implausible. (I’ve seen posts here at HW, believe it or not, which have sought to deny PC overtreatment by saying, “I’m not sure I buy into this whole ‘overtreatment’ thing” and have sought to rationalize the entire epidemic as a hoax.) Minimization through re-definition serves to avoid acknowledgement, conscious confrontation and ultimately having to deal with a negative situation by reducing the perception, importance and impact of the events.
Rather than re-define, or guess, look it up.
This month’s (March 2015) Journal of the Association of American Family Physicians includes an editorial titled, “Improving Quality by Doing Less: Overtreatment.”
I’ll simply copy and paste this portion of one sentence, “…overtreatment, which is defined as treatment initiated when there is little or no reliable evidence of a clinically meaningful net benefit, where net benefit equals benefit minus harm.”
BTW, the "Overtreatment" article by the American Family Physicians lists a number of other proceedures as examples of overtreatment, in addition to treatment of low-grade prostate cancer. I believe clocknut took a cut at a list, but the AFP list includes:
Anticoagulation for a small, subsegmental pulmonary emboli
Arthroscopic surgery for knee osteoarthritis
A1C targets below 7.0%, especially for middle-aged and older patients
Medical therapy for moderately elevated triglyceride levels
Treatment of prehypertension and mild hypertension
Using the same low-density lipoprotein targets for low-risk patients as for high-and very high-risk patients
Vertebroplasty for painful vertebral compression fracture