Advertising


News

RACGP reacts to overhauled prostate cancer guidelines


Jo Roberts


13/06/2025 3:58:49 PM

With significant changes to early detection proposed, potentially altering the way GPs screen and treat patients, the college has aired its views on the guide.

Man sitting with his GP.
The draft guidelines were released for feedback by the PCFA in April 2025.

An overhauled set of clinical guidelines could change the way prostate cancer is screened for and detected in Australia – in response, a new RACGP submission has revealed the college’s views on the plan and how it will work within general practice.
 
It comes after the draft Guidelines for the Early Detection of Prostate Cancer in Australia were put out to consultation earlier this year from the Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia (PCFA).
 
The plan aims to reassess the balance of harms and benefits of baseline prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening, emphasising a structured approach to offering all men the chance to engage in shared decision-making.
 
Key changes in the proposed guidelines include offering males who are not at a higher risk or from a priority population, but who are interested in their prostate health, an initial PSA test from age 40.
 
It also includes a ‘strong recommendation’ for GPs to initiate conversations about PSA testing and potential benefits and harms, and offer testing every two years to all males aged 50–69.
 
In response, the RACGP has recommended the inclusion of PSA cut off limits for individual patient groups, saying these need to be emphasised.
 
‘This clarifies to readers that cutoffs are different depending on the testing situation,’ the submission says.
 
While the RACGP commended the PCFA on its ‘hard work in updating these important and valuable clinical guidelines’, it has also flagged concerns with a ‘world-first recommendation’ to offer a baseline PSA test to all interested men at age 40.
 
‘It is important men of this age are fully informed and undertake a shared decision-making process with their GP,’ the submission said.
 
‘This is particularly the case given men of this age at average risk may be at higher risk of overdiagnosis and harms, so they need to think very carefully before undertaking testing.
 
‘The PCFA needs to make it clear this is not a recommendation for testing to be routinely proactively offered to men in their 40s, but is meant to allow GPs some flexibility on start age for highly intrinsically motivated younger men, and emphasise this is a consensus recommendation.’
 
The guidelines also recommend a national public education campaign focused on understanding risk factors and early detection.
 
However, ‘the RACGP recommends men are asked to speak with their GP about their individual risk factors and about the benefits and potential harms of screening’, the college’s submission said.  
 
‘We recommend any promotion of testing for men interested in prostate health be careful – particularly if they are at average risk and are at higher risk of harms from overdiagnosis.
 
‘Incautious promotion may have the effect of making testing appear routine for men in their 40s.’
 
It is also recommended that earlier and more frequent testing for men at higher risk, including those with a family history or of sub-Saharan ancestry, start at age 40, and for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men to be tested every two years from age 40.
 
However, ‘more unintentional harms’ could result from screening all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men for prostate cancer from the age of 40, says the RACGP.
 
The college has instead called for screening to start from the age of 50 for all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men, in line with non-Indigenous men and the National guide to preventive healthcare for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
 
The submission said the evidence cited by the PCFA in its draft guidelines ‘shows no significant difference in the age of diagnosis or spread of disease at diagnosis in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men’.
 
‘Therefore, while they are a priority population, the RACGP is concerned this approach may lead to more unintentional harms for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men, such as false positive PSA tests and overdiagnosis,’ it said.
 
The submission also noted that the addition of a summary list of the potential harms from overdiagnosis and treatment to the guidelines would provide GPs with key information to share with patients as part of the decision-making process.
 
‘GPs undertaking a careful shared decision-making process with asymptomatic men is a crucial part of the GP role,’ it said.
 
‘Patients often like to know the likelihood of side effects or harms before making a decision.
This should include information such as rates of impotence, rates of incontinence, number of interventions to save a life over 11 years, 16 years, etc.’
 
Another key recommendation in the submission is the development of a national registry for prostate cancer screening after shared decision-making, in line with other Australian screening programs.
 
This would capture the information of patients, ensuring that even if they saw multiple providers, or changed doctors, they would receive recalls and reminders for screenings when necessary.
 
Log in below to join the conversation.


Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health clinical guidelines men’s health prostate cancer prostate screening


newsGP weekly poll How often do you include integrative medicine, defined as blending conventional and complementary medicine practices, in your practice to deliver personalised healthcare?
 
10%
 
44%
 
44%
Related



newsGP weekly poll How often do you include integrative medicine, defined as blending conventional and complementary medicine practices, in your practice to deliver personalised healthcare?

Advertising

Advertising

 

Login to comment

Dr Mark Jerry Schulberg   14/06/2025 7:21:11 AM

About a decade ago prostate assessment was canned by the College.
It’s taken a decade and a number of unnecessary deaths from prostate cancer to come to this epiphany.
This just resonates the slow ,delayed and subsequently dangerous advice from the experts regarding treatment options especially with respect to novel ideas and treatments.
The College should be leading the advice and not denying doctors and patients appropriate treatments.


Dr Chiaw Lee   14/06/2025 11:09:02 AM

And Medicare rebates for GP-referred Pelvic MRIs to follow up on serially elevated PSAs would be the next task for the DoH to Implement. But I too commend the work of the PCFA, as I’ve been increasingly seeing more younger men, and very functional 70+ year olds with high Gleason score prostate cancer and with agonising metastatic disease, who would have otherwise lived meaningful lives. The Red Book “recommendations” for Prostate Cancer is due for an overhaul.


Dr Peter James Strickland   14/06/2025 2:12:21 PM

Lets be clear here----- PSA is an essential initial test (with DRE) for detecting prostate cancer, and should be a routine test on all men over 50 yrs of age every year, and especially in any man with a family history of prostate cancer, or any haematuria, or symptoms of urinary obstruction, bone pain (esp. in pelvis or ribs). In my 50 yrs of experience I have never missed a case of prostate cancer on that regime, and every case of fatal prostate cancer I have treated was missed because of failure to follow that practice by others. All women want to be screened for breast cancer, and the best test is an MRI in my opinion --safe, definite, and non=painful and less likely to cause 'trauma' metastases --and we need to look after the guys equally as well --get the tumours early, as the death rates are equivalent for both these cancers! The advice by urologists is frankly wrong, and retrograde in my opinion.


Dr Andrew Pattison   15/06/2025 4:07:49 PM

The RACGP statement about the new PCFA prostate cancer screening guidelines is a little disappointing. Most GP's active in men's health have been aware that the previous guidelines from 2016 have been manifestly out of date for many years. Wherever PSA testing has been introduced, the mortality from Ca Prostate has fallen - and more importantly there has been a dramatic reduction in the presentation of men with metastatic disease. The new guidelines are long overdue and will hopefully be embraced by Australian GP's. We should definitely be backing off on the fears of overdiagnosis and concentrating more on earlier diagnosis. We have all had the distressing experience of palliating men in their 50's and 60's with metastatic Ca Prostate. Hopefully the days of discouraging men from having a PSA test will be a thing of the past - and we look to the RACGP to take a strong lead in this new approach.


A.Prof Christopher David Hogan   15/06/2025 6:46:18 PM

There are 2 schools of thought in active disagreement for over 30 years
It is a nuanced argument - active screeners say screen everyone over a certain age with PSA then investigate them by image & biopsy. This assumes that PSA, imaging & biopsy are very accurate predictors of outcomes & that screening & operating reduces mortality & morbidity.
Non active screeners argue that there are a lot of people with indolent prostate cancers- cancers which do not progress. They have selected recommendations
They argue that the safety & efficiency of screening & then operating must be PROVEN & point to studies that show that morbidity & mortality are worse with population screening.
This is counterintuitive as logic says "all cancers are bad" Sadly using logic always a challenge in biological sciences because biology does not always act logically


Dr Lorin Philip Monck   17/06/2025 5:37:03 PM

I concur with colleagues. PSA is essential test for screening for prostate cancer due
to its universality and access. Improvements in timely confirmation of cancer needs to be improved through Medicare funded MRI scanning. Patients cannot make choices about how they want to manage a diagnosis of prostate tumours without knowing about their existence


Dr Derek Leonard Mitchell   21/06/2025 10:35:29 AM

Sorry to disagree.
I believe if I follow the suggested guidelines, using absolute PSA levels, I will miss early cancers.
Two cases illustrate this.
One aggressive cancer was found (on PSA rate of rise) in a 47 year old, around 2007, who had a curative radical prostatectomy and is still alive.
The highest initial PSA seen was 88 - due to prostatitis. That person is also still alive, having had a TUR for obstructive symptoms. Histology benign.
The key to the first was a slightly elevated PSA, but which rose quickly. Rate of rise is a key parameter.

The annual rate of rise of PSA must not exceed 0.7 ug/L. If it does, then the patient gets 3 weeks of doxycycline 100mg/day, and a repeat PSA, including free PSA, 4 weeks after antibiotics.
Unless the PSA returns to near baseline, and the free PSA is > 18%, the patient gets a urologist referral. If referral is not needed, then repeat the exercise one year later.
I believe anyone over 40 is a candidate for a PSA indigenous or not