USPSTF and PSA testing in the media

The media — over the past few days — has taken every opportunity to “stoke the furore” about the USPSTF’s recommendation that PSA screening (of all men aged 50 to 75 years of age, or thereabouts) is not justified by the available data.

Here is a list of a few articles that some of you may be interested in reading:

These are just six examples from a list of 20+ articles that we are aware of in the major media alone.

3 Responses

  1. The issue appears not so much about screening men for prostate cancer, but what you choose to do with the information you get from the test. New tests are being developed that will be more accurate than the PSA and that should cut down on the number of unnecessary biopsies. The biggest challenge is shifting the paradigm for treatment for low-risk prostate cancer. So many times I read about men with low-risk cancer, on websites like this one, being recommended radical treatments. We have to educate both the physician and the patient as to the appropriateness of active surveillance.

  2. There’s a clearly-written, spot-on editorial about the screening debate in today’s on-line NYT.

    Though Dr. Welch does not give minimal attention to the inevitable, irreversible damage to sexual function of currently-used standards of whole gland prostate cancer treatment.

  3. Dear Mike:

    I keep saying this (despite the fact that no one is listening). The USPSTFS is not saying men shouldn’t have PSA tests. All they are saying is that men shouldn’t have PSA tests without a clear understanding of the risk/benefit equation associated with such tests.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: