1 time PSA testing not much help - not really a big surprise

Well, the Task Force would like us to somehow suspend our disbelief with the idea that regular screening only saves an occasional guy here and there. Maybe these characters are making a lame attempt to corroborate that view with this ridiculously ill conceived study.

P34 said...

mattamx said...
Well, the Task Force would like us to somehow suspend our disbelief with the idea that regular screening only saves an occasional guy here and there. .

Even regular screening doesn't help when men like me ignore the results because its a well known fact it's only prostate cancer, no need to do anything.

So true. Ask me how I know.

I never have understood opposition to annual PSA testing. As far as I know, PCa and cancers of the blood are the only cancers that present themselves with easy to do, low cost, and easy to track numeric tests. I have a friend recently diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. He had been losing weight and feeling "not right" in his gastrointestinal tract for over a year. Numerous scans, however, failed to identify disease. Finally, after exploratory surgery, his doctors were able to determine pancreatic malignancy -- his prognosis is " only months." A few years back I read the "The Emperor of All Maladies" by Siddhartha Mukherjee. This book is subtitled -- A Biography of Cancer, and is a historical look at the centuries long effort to understand, much less treat cancers. One thing I learned was that Dana Farber chose to do his pioneering work on childhood leukemia because easy to do blood tests gave him feedback on disease progression and the effectiveness of treatment. My wife was diagnosed and treated for breast cancer fifteen years ago. Although the number of "new" breast and prostate cancer diagnoses are roughly the same each year in the US, breast cancer presents many more difficult diagnosis and treatment problems in the absence of the equivalent of PSA tests.

mattmax is sorta, kinda on the right track. One of the indirect take-aways from the study is that PSA population screening saves very few lives...this keeps being demonstrated with data over-and-over.

But more directly, different organizations continue to examine ways in which the PSA test might be made to be useful for PC "screening" if applied in a different protocol. There have been different studies examining testing at different ages, and then follow-up testing at different timeframes after that depending on results. Best known study led to proposal for mass PSA testing at age 40...follow-up test timeframe depends on result. This one has some traction.

The study linked by the OP, on the other hand, took a different approach (as described), but the findings do not support the hypothesis for a single PSA testing for population-based screening...no traction at this time.

RCS said...
BJ,
As one of the “few” whose life was saved by PSA testing, I am forever grateful. This year, in the USA, I believe there will be 20,000 men who wish they could be as grateful.

Post deleted, rule #3 violation.
Try not to insult other members. I know it’s hard,

Unbelievable.

Post Edited By Moderator (Pratoman) : 11/19/2018 4:58:48 PM (GMT-7)

RCS, hope that you are successful battling that Lyme Disease...I hear it can be nasty.

Once again a nasty little dig, Blackjack -- no different than your JackH moniker

Mel