 |
|
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
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
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
|
