Detection of latent prostate cancer from routine screening: Comparison with breast cancer screening

Background:While it is well established that patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have substantial morbidity and mortality, recent studies have shown that RA patients have increased mortality due to cancer. There...

Mammography for Older Women?

Critical Appraisal of Prostate-specific Antigen in Prostate Cancer Screening: 20 Years Later

INTERVAL AFTER PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN TESTING AND SUBSEQUENT RISK OF INCURABLE PROSTATE CANCER

Relationship Among Initial Serum Prostate Specific Antigen, Prostate Specific Antigen Progression and Prostate Cancer Detection at Repeat Screening Visits

Mass Screening for Prostate Cancer in Korea: A Population Based Study

Overview of Performance Indicators of Prostate Cancer Screening Trials

Early detection and aggressive treatment of prostate cancer: groping in the dark.

At present, increased early detection of prostate cancer appears to be the most feasible way to reduce cancer-related mortality. As a result significant efforts have been made to identify more men with curable cancer. This article reviews the role of serum prostate-specific antigen in an early detection or screening strategy and describes efforts to enhance the specificity of prostate-specific antigen testing.

Malignant transformation of the prostate and progression of carcinoma appear to be the consequence of a complex series of initiation and promotional events under genetic and environmental influences. Increased incidence of the condition may be the result of improved detection, greater awareness of the condition, and possibly an increased life expectancy accompanied by a decrease in competing causes of death rather than a true increase in the prevalence of the disease. The marked racial and geographic differences are probably multifactorial, with genetic, environmental, and possibly social influences affecting progression of the disease. Among several risk factors, evidence for the familial inheritance of some prostate cancers is compelling. Dietary influences, hormonal milieu, and the role of environmental carcinogens are currently under intense investigation. As further risk factors are identified, it will become increasingly important to identify individuals at increased risk for the disease. These men should undergo regular evaluation with state-of-the-art methods.

Incorporating genomic data into multivariate risk models for lung cancer

Prostate Specific Antigen and Human Glandular Kallikrein 2 in Early Detection of Prostate Cancer

-2]Proenzyme Prostate Specific Antigen is More Accurate Than Total and Free Prostate Specific Antigen in Differentiating Prostate Cancer From Benign Disease in a Prospective Prostate Cancer Screening Study

While guidelines recommend against routine screening for breast, prostate, and colorectal cancers in older adults (65+ years) with <10-year life expectancy, many of these patients continue to be screened. How clinicians consider screening cessation across multiple cancer screening types is unknown. To compare and contrast clinicians' perspectives on discontinuing breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer screenings in older adults. Qualitative, semi-structured interviews. Primary care clinicians in Maryland (N=30) APPROACH: We conducted semi-structured interviews with individual clinicians. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using standard techniques of qualitative content analysis to identify major themes. Participants were mostly physicians (24/30) and women (16/30). Four major themes highlighted differences in decision-making across cancer screenings: (1) Clinicians reported more often screening beyond guideline-recommended ages for breast and prostate cancers than colorectal cancer; (2) clinicians had different priorities when considering the benefits/harms of each screening; for example, some prioritized continuing colorectal cancer screening due to the test's high efficacy while others prioritized stopping colorectal cancer screening due to high procedural risk; some prioritized continuing prostate cancer screening due to poor outcomes from advanced prostate cancer while others prioritized stopping prostate cancer screening due to high false positive test rates and harms from downstream tests; (3) clinicians discussed harms of prostate and colorectal cancer screening more readily than for breast cancer screening; (4) clinicians perceived more involvement with gastroenterologists in colonoscopy decisions and less involvement from specialists for prostate and breast cancer screening. Our results highlight the need for more explicit guidance on how to weigh competing considerations in cancer screening (such as test accuracy versus ease of cancer treatment after detection). Recognizing the complexity of the benefit/harms analysis as clinicians consider multiple cancer screenings, future decision support tools, and clinician education materials can specifically address the competing considerations.

CONTROVERSIES IN PROSTATE CANCER SCREENING