The USPSTF updates their prostate cancer screening guidelines, recommending against prostate cancer screening in men age 75 years or older.
PSAs have always been controversial, as there are no studies definitively pointing to a survival benefit. The costs of increased screening include false positives, leading to more invasive, unnecessary testing like prostate biopsies.
The challenge will be to convince patients. There is a pervading mentality that earlier and more frequent testing equates to better medicine. In the case of prostate cancer screening, this doesn’t seem to be the case.
I also wonder how the old Merenstein case will weigh on physicians’ minds when considering these new recommendations.
Related posts:
- Prostate cancer screening in blacks, and the lack of balanced information
- Who’s not happy with the new prostate cancer screening recommendations?
- Prostate cancer screening and the PSA test
- Should I get a PSA test for prostate cancer? A new study shows that screening for prostate cancer doesn’t necessarily save lives
- How screening for prostate cancer can be a gamble, and why either screening or not has consequences
- Should prostate cancer screening stop after the age of 75?
- Poll: Should men still be screened for prostate cancer?
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 3 comments }
The challenge will be to convince patients.
Also doctors. My 78-year-old father would’ve said “no” if given a choice. But his doctor simply marks it as another item on a blood test without even informing him what he is being tested for and why.
I tried explaining it to my mom – who plays the role of “translator” as my father barely speaks English and without her probably wouldn’t go to a doctor anyway, but she is too shy to question the doctor.
PS. No, I will not sue for not ordering the test, and neither will my mother
I remember reading that JAMA piece when it first came out. It was horrifying! I’m not sure which was worse: that the lawyer was arguing in favor of ignorance, or that the jury bought it.
Why would you be horrified when at best you only know 50% of the facts in that case? Would you assume the plaintiff was telling you the whole story if you just read their take on it?
Comments on this entry are closed.