INVITED RESEARCH HIGHLIGHT
Year : 2015  |  Volume : 17  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 44-45

To screen or nor to screen: the prostate cancer dilemma


1 Department of Urology and Radiation Oncology, The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA
2 Department of Surgery, Division of Urology and Radiation Oncology, The Anschutz Cancer Center, The University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Aurora, CO, USA

Correspondence Address:
Nelson N Stone
Department of Urology and Radiation Oncology, The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY
USA
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/1008-682X.142770

Rights and Permissions

The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate (ERSPC) has updated their previous seminal report on prostate cancer mortality comparing screened men to controls. Now with 13 years follow-up, the rate ratio of prostate cancer mortality was 0.79 favoring the screened population. The authors concluded that there was a "substantial reduction in prostate cancer mortality attributable to testing with prostate-specific antigen (PSA)" but they also stated that a "quantification of harms" needed to be addressed. The issue of harms was not addressed by the ERSPC (at least not in this report) and hence this additional statement most likely reflects the controversy currently surrounding the risks associated with over-diagnosis and treatment of indolent diseases inadvertently detected by a screening protocol. [1] In addition, the positive results from this trial conflict with those of the prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian (PLCO) [2] study and require further elaboration.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2106    
    Printed41    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded392    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 3    

Recommend this journal