‘Don't be fobbed off': Readers back Telegraph campaign for prostate cancer screening
In the hundreds of replies The Telegraph has received in response to our campaign, there are countless stories where men have had to insist on PSA tests when GPs dismissed their concerns.
Prostate cancer kills 12,000 men in this country every year, with one in eight prostate cancer cases being caught at stage 4, when the disease is incurable.
If the PSA test were proactively offered to men as part of a targeted screening programme, lives would be saved because more cases would be caught at an earlier stage, when treatment is more successful.
That is why The Telegraph is campaigning for a targeted national screening programme for prostate cancer, focused on men who are at the greatest risk of developing the disease.
This includes men over 50, black men (whose risk is twice that of white men) and those with a family history of prostate cancer.
Following the launch of the campaign, readers who have had prostate cancer in the past or are currently undergoing treatment have shared their stories in the hope it will bring about change for others.
'It's my right to have a test'
Paul Harvey, 75, believes he would be dead now if he had not insisted on knowing what his PSA levels were.
'My father died with prostate cancer, so I knew I was a higher risk,' he shares.
Mr Harvey, who works part-time for the North Yorkshire Police, asked his GP for a PSA test but was told the test wasn't very accurate and not to bother.
'I insisted. I told her it was my right to have a test, and two weeks later she made me a fast-track referral,' he explains.
Mr Harvey was soon diagnosed with a PSA of 10.2 and a Gleason score of 3+4. Gleason is a system used to grade prostate cancer based on the appearance of cancer cells.
'At this point, I joined a local support group and found the Macmillan nurse very helpful in bringing my fears down in size,' he shares.
The NHS 'stepped up speed', and Mr Harvey had a robotic prostatectomy followed by radiation therapy a few years later. 'Yes, there are still side effects, but at least I am alive to experience them.'
'I am a strong advocate of testing, and am witheringly blunt with men who say ' I do not want to know what my PSA is,'' Mr Harvey states.
'I was told a PSA test was not needed'
Telegraph reader David, 67, an aircraft engineer, received PSA tests in the past with all low numbers, but had cause for concern when he experienced urethral bleeds on two occasions, six months apart.
His bladder was medically examined with a camera, but he was told he was all clear.
'Each time I questioned my PSA levels, but was told a PSA test was not needed,' he says.
He then went to a different GP with a separate issue, who asked, with all the intervention, why he had not requested a PSA test. 'I pointed out I had, on numerous occasions, but was refused.'
The GP sent him for a PSA test the next day, and found he had hugely increased numbers. A CT scan followed, revealing he had stage 3 prostate cancer.
He is currently undergoing treatment at Weston Park Hospital in Sheffield.
'The answer is not to be fobbed off'
Michael Evans had annual PSA checks for ten years until 2005, when he noticed the level had risen from 2.2 to 3.4 in one year.
Although the level was still low, he admits, he was concerned about the rapid rate of increase, which he knew to be an indicator of cancer.
But his doctor dismissed his concerns and later told him that a PSA level of four was the lowest for an NHS referral at the time.
So Mr Evans insisted on a private referral, and as a result he was diagnosed with prostate cancer within a week.
Two weeks later, he had the gland removed, although he had been offered alternative therapies. The cancer had not spread, and his PSA level has remained undetectable for 20 years.
The reader says the PSA test 'is not clear proof and, of course, a high score can also indicate benign conditions. But it's a start, and warrants further investigation.
'Prostate cancer is eminently curable if you catch it early, as I did. The answer is not to be fobbed off and insist on investigation, especially since MRI scans are now safer than the biopsy, which was all that was available in 2005.'
'Astonished'
Geraldine Davies's late husband, Ivor Gunton, took part in Bristol University's ProtecT study around the age of 60, close to the time he was winding down his gardening business. He was tested every year and saw a consultant after receiving a PSA of four.
The study results provided strong evidence there was a small increased risk of progression and cancer spread from active monitoring, compared to risks of harms to sexual, urinary and bowel function caused by radical treatments.
Upon finding a small tumour, the study looked into which treatments were most successful. Mr Gunton had regular monitoring, and after ten years, the tumour had not grown.
'I am astonished that the results of this comprehensive study are not directing action to prevent so many men from dying of this disease. Why have its findings been ignored?'
Mr Gunton died of bowel cancer in 2022, but it was in no way related to the prostate cancer, Ms Davies shares.
'My only symptom was backache'
Paul Beal was diagnosed with aggressive prostate cancer four years ago – his only symptom was a backache. 'Thankfully, my doctor picked it up at a routine asthma test visit after asking about my general health.'
'The Queen Elizabeth Hospital in King's Lynn were fantastic, and I can't praise the Macmillan Centre enough,' Mr Beal says.
However, 'the strangest and best thing that came out of the whole thing is that my friend Brian Hallard had the same diagnosis as me, and we went through the whole treatment as a team.'
'We are pleased to tell you that we are both fine and in remission, both with very low PSAs,' Mr Beal adds.
The friends are both invited back to the Macmillan Centre every two months or so, to meet with other men with prostate cancer.
'And I have to say what a great bunch of men, and it's good to talk,' Mr Beal shares.
The pair also promote getting the PSA test through their separate businesses – World Of Fun, a joke shop, and the Princess Theatre, both in Hunstanton. 'We are very open about getting the message out.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
43 minutes ago
- The Independent
Eating fewer ultra-processed foods could boost weight loss, trial suggests
Eating minimally processed foods and avoiding ultra processed foods (UPFs) could help people lose twice as much weight, a new trial has found. Sticking to meals cooked from scratch could also help curb food cravings, researchers suggest. UPFs include the likes of processed meals, ice cream, crisps, some breakfast cereals, biscuits and fizzy drinks. They tend to have high levels of saturated fat, salt and sugar, as well as additives and ingredients that are not used when people cook from scratch, like preservatives, emulsifiers and artificial colours and flavours. The trial, led by experts at University College London (UCL) and University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (UCLH), involved 55 people split into two groups. Half were given an eight-week diet plan comprising minimally processed foods, such as overnight oats and spaghetti bolognese, while the other half were given foods like breakfast oat bars or lasagne ready meals. After completing one diet, the groups then switched. Researchers matched the two diets nutritionally on levels of fat, saturated fat, protein, carbohydrates, salt and fibre using the Eatwell Guide, which outlines recommendations on how to eat a healthy, balanced diet. Dr Samuel Dicken, of the UCL Centre for Obesity Research and UCL department of behavioural science and health, said: 'Previous research has linked ultra-processed foods with poor health outcomes. 'But not all ultra-processed foods are inherently unhealthy based on their nutritional profile.' He said the main aim of the study was to explore the role of food processing and how it impacts weight, blood pressure, body composition and food cravings. Some 50 people completed the trial, with both groups losing weight. However, those on the minimally processed diet lost more weight (2.06%) compared to the UPF diet (1.05% loss). The UPF diet also did not result in significant fat loss, researchers said. Dr Dicken said: 'Though a 2% reduction may not seem very big, that is only over eight weeks and without people trying to actively reduce their intake. 'If we scaled these results up over the course of a year, we'd expect to see a 13% weight reduction in men and a 9% reduction in women on the minimally processed diet, but only a 4% weight reduction in men and 5% in women after the ultra-processed diet. 'Over time this would start to become a big difference.' Those on the trial were also asked to complete questionnaires on food cravings before and after starting the diets. Those eating minimally processed foods had less cravings and were able to resist them better, the study suggests. However, researchers also measured others markers like blood pressure, heart rate, liver function, glucose levels and cholesterol and found no significant negative impacts of the UPF diet. Professor Chris van Tulleken, of the UCL division of infection and immunity and UCLH, said: 'The global food system at the moment drives diet-related poor health and obesity, particularly because of the wide availability of cheap, unhealthy food. 'This study highlights the importance of ultra-processing in driving health outcomes in addition to the role of nutrients like fat, salt and sugar.' The Eatwell Guide recommends the average woman should consume around 2,000 calories a day, while an average man should consume 2,500. Both diet groups had a calorie deficit, meaning people were eating fewer calories than what they were burning, which helps with weight loss. However, the deficit was higher from minimally processed foods at around 230 calories a day, compared with 120 calories per day from UPFs. Professor Rachel Batterham, senior author of the study from the UCL centre for obesity research, said: 'Despite being widely promoted, less than 1% of the UK population follows all of the recommendations in the Eatwell Guide, and most people stick to fewer than half. 'The normal diets of the trial participants tended to be outside national nutritional guidelines and included an above average proportion of UPF, which may help to explain why switching to a trial diet consisting entirely of UPF, but that was nutritionally balanced, resulted in neutral or slightly favourable changes to some secondary health markers. 'The best advice to people would be to stick as closely to nutritional guidelines as they can by moderating overall energy intake, limiting intake of salt, sugar and saturated fat, and prioritising high-fibre foods such as fruits, vegetables, pulses and nuts. 'Choosing less processed options such as whole foods and cooking from scratch, rather than ultra-processed, packaged foods or ready meals, is likely to offer additional benefits in terms of body weight, body composition and overall health.' Commenting on the study, Tracy Parker, nutrition lead at the British Heart Foundation, said: 'These findings support what we have long suspected – that the way food is made might affect our health, not just the nutrients it contains. 'The way this study was designed means it is more reflective of real-world conditions than previous research on ultra-processed foods. 'Unlike earlier observational studies, this was a randomised controlled trial where participants were provided with all their meals, and the diets were carefully matched to meet the Eatwell Guide – this allowed researchers to isolate the effect of food processing itself, making it more likely that the differences seen after eight weeks were due to how the food in their diets was processed, not just what was in it. 'Completely cutting UPFs out of our diets isn't realistic for most of us, but including more minimally processed foods – like fresh or home cooked meals – alongside a balanced diet could offer added benefits too. 'Mediterranean-style diets, which include plenty of minimally or unprocessed foods such as fruit, vegetables, fish, nuts and seeds, beans, lentils and wholegrains, have consistently been shown to reduce our risk of heart attacks and strokes.'
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Child is rushed to hospital 'after falling from height' in Dagenham
A five-year old boy has been rushed to hospital after 'falling from a height' in Dagenham this afternoon. Paramedics rushed to the scene near Dagenham Headway Tube station in east London at 2.31pm. The child is understood to have fallen from a height and was taken to a major trauma centre following the incident.
The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
Boy, 5, rushed to hospital after plunging from a height as air ambulance responds & cops close street
A FIVE-year-old boy has fallen from a height and been rushed to a major trauma centre. Paramedics raced to the scene, nearby Dagenham Headway Tube station, in east London, at around 2.30pm today. Church Elm Lane was cordoned off from Tasty kebab shop to Church Elm Lane Health Centre. Emergency services, including an air ambulance, arrived to transport the youngster to a major trauma centre. It is understood the boy's injuries are not life threatening. The Met Police confirmed there have been no arrests. A spokesperson for the force said: "Police were called at 14:32hrs on Monday, 4 August to reports of a child who had fallen from height in Church Elm Lane, Dagenham Officers, the London Ambulance Service and the London Air Ambulance attended. "A five-year-old boy was taken to hospital for treatment. His injuries are not life threatening. There have been no arrests." A London Ambulance Service spokesperson added: "We were called at 2.31pm today to reports of a person fallen from height on Church Elm Lane, Dagenham. "We sent resources to the scene, including an ambulance crew, an incident response officer and a paramedic in a fast response car. "We also dispatched London's Air Ambulance. "Our first paramedic arrived in less than five minutes. We treated a child at the scene and took them to a major trauma centre by road." 1
