PSA testing about $$?

Even though it may be about $$ to some hospitals and surgeons, in my opinion it still is worth it and saves lives

From Time magazine dedicated to cancer, June 13th edition

The Business of Screening
Among all the reasons overscreening is taking place, the least discussed — and most disturbing — is money. Back in the 1990s, when Brawley, now of the ACS, was an assistant director of the National Cancer Institute, he visited a large research hospital in Atlanta. There, a marketing expert explained that providing free PSA tests to 1,000 men at a local mall could lead to millions of dollars in subsequent revenue for the hospital. The income would come from biopsies, surgeries, radiation and even urinary-sphincter implants in men who experienced complications. This kind of strategy is common, according to Brawley.

Some health centers and urology practices use giveaways to entice men to get PSA tests. In recent years, men have scooped up tickets to Atlanta Hawks, Buffalo Sabres and Tampa Bay Rays games in exchange for getting tested. A nonprofit national organization called Zero, for "zero prostate cancer," tries to get the word out about the benefits of PSA testing, parking a mobile testing unit outside sporting events and churches. The organization doesn't charge patients for tests but accepts donations from urologists, Big Pharma and Beckman Coulter, a PSA-test manufacturer.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2075133_2075127_2075108,00.html #ixzz1PBGjCgUk

"Overscreening" isn't the problem..."overtreatment" is a large problem.

Widespread use of prostate-specific antigen screening has resulted in younger and healthier men being diagnosed with smaller-and-smaller amounts of prostate cancers, or men with insignificant (or "IDLE") tumors.   Even though nowdays it is thought to be unethical to screen men without them being aware of the pros and cons of PSA testing and treatments, we still have men (some men, not all men) rushed into aggressive treatment for PC that probably never needs treatment, often suffering profound consequences of treatment. 

Note that these comments come from someone who is "pro-surgery", "pro-radiation" and "pro-Active Surveillance"...more importantly, I am for aggressively treating the PC cases that NEED aggressive treatment, and NOT aggressively treating those who don't need it by using the well-developed protocols to separate the two.

 

Post Edited (Casey59) : 6/13/2011 1:52:05 PM (GMT-6)

OS, having had 7 negative DRE's in a row, spaced a year apart, I would agree with you on that part. The negative DRE's could have sent a false sense of security if it hadn't been for a steadily rising PSA during those 7 years.