As many readers will be aware, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is in process of developing a new “evidence report” which will form the basis of any update to current USPSTF recommendations about prostate cancer screening.
The following statement was issued to its members this morning by the American Urological Association:
We are pleased to share with you exciting news that the … USPSTF … has selected an AUA-nominated urologist to independently review the evidence report that will inform updated recommendations on prostate cancer screening. As we shared last month, the AUA nominated three urologists in response to a formal request from the USPSTF.
As you know, the AUA is a long-standing advocate for USPSTF reform, and has worked actively with U.S. Representatives Marsha Blackburn (R-TN-07), Bobby Rush (D-IL-01) and other lawmakers to advance legislation on this important issue. In November, the AUA provided testimony supporting USPSTF reform to the House Energy & Commerce Subcommittee on Health and, most recently, announced support for H.R. 539, the USPSTF Transparency & Accountability Act of 2017, introduced on January 13 by Reps. Blackburn and Rush.
“We truly appreciate the USPSTF’s inclusion of urologists on this important panel and its willingness to consider the AUA’s nominations,” said AUA President Dr. Richard Babayan. “This is an important first step toward the transparency we seek in our efforts to reform the Task Force.”
“We believe that input from a urologist will be meaningful and impactful relative to developing recommendations that the prostate cancer community as a whole can support.”
Ensuring appropriate access to prostate-specific antigen screening and reforming the USPSTF remain top priorities for the AUA.
Whether the unidentified, AUA-nominated urologist will agree with the findings of the evidence report currently in preparation, and whether the USPSTF will necessarily agree with any comments made by this AUA-nominated reviewer that may dispute or be critical of the findings of the new evidence report is, of course, completely unknown. We shall need to monitor how that plays out over time.