You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 166 No. 1, January 9, 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Editorial
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (9)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related article
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Topic Collections
 •Men's Health
 •Prostate Disease
 •Oncology
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

The PSA Conundrum

Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:7-8.

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

In the United States at least, physicians are generally convinced that when the evidence is in, screening for prostate cancer with the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test will be shown to do more good than harm. Support for that opinion can be found in physicians’ personal decisions about PSA testing: as of 2000, 78% of male primary care physicians and 95% of male urologists 50 years and older in a national sample reported having had a PSA test.1

We already know that PSA screening has a substantial downside. With widespread use of the PSA test, through overdiagnosis, the risk that an American male will have to deal with prostate cancer over his lifetime has increased from about 10% to 18%,2 even without universal testing. A man having regular PSA tests will easily double his risk of eventually "getting" prostate cancer. The poor specificity of PSA testing results in a high probability . . . [Full Text of this Article]


AUTHOR INFORMATION
Michael J. Barry, MD



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

The Effectiveness of Screening for Prostate Cancer: A Nested Case-Control Study
John Concato, Carolyn K. Wells, Ralph I. Horwitz, David Penson, Graeme Fincke, Dan R. Berlowitz, Gregory Froehlich, Dawna Blake, Martyn A. Vickers, Gerald A. Gehr, Nabil H. Raheb, Gail Sullivan, and Peter Peduzzi
Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(1):38-43.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  


THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Lack of Comprehension of Common Prostate Cancer Terms in an Underserved Population
Kilbridge et al.
JCO 2009;27:2015-2021.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Effectiveness of Decision Aids: A Review of the Evidence
Leatherman and Warrick
Med Care Res Rev 2008;65:79S-116S.
ABSTRACT  

Trends in Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing From 1995 Through 2004
Farwell et al.
Arch Intern Med 2007;167:2497-2502.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Prostate Cancer Screening: Still Waiting for a Randomized Controlled Trial
JWatch General 2006;2006:5-5.
FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2006 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.