http://www.medpagetoday.com/HematologyO ... ncer/28929

Federal Task Force Nixes PSA Screening

"Healthy men do not need prostate cancer screening with prostate specific antigen (PSA) because the test does not save lives and often leads to unnecessary testing, interventions, and treatment, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is expected to recommend in an update to its prostate cancer screening guidelines.

According to a report in the New York Times, the recommendation will be announced Tuesday and is based on a USPSTF-commissioned study, which failed to show a clear benefit from prostate cancer screening with PSA. . . ."

The previous Prostate Cancer thread is buried. But, if reviewed one would find, Moi was right again

Moi

Remember, life is dangerous and always results in death.

My current doctor must not read my chart because I was billed $107 for lab work to check my PSA. Dumbass I am a eunuch I do not need a PSA. I am waiting until the next time I see him to ask how worried I need to be about prostate cancer. Sorry back to the thread.

In diploid animals with haploid gametes, I find that conception invariably is the cause of death.

moi621 (imported) wrote: Fri Oct 07, 2011 6:52 pm http://www.medpagetoday.com/HematologyO ... ncer/28929

Federal Task Force Nixes PSA Screening

....................

Who is on the task force and what is their affiliation?

Mac (imported) wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2011 10:08 am Who is on the task force and what is their affiliation?

Their affiliation to what may I ask?

Actually, this is a good recommendation. There is a greater chance of getting a bad PSA result and not having cancer than getting a bad PSA result and having cancer and most of the treatment does no good, does not increase the length of life.

Mac (imported) wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2011 10:08 am Who is on the task force and what is their affiliation?

I can understand the cynicism. But, consider - not having a PSA costs who? Think of all the unnecessary prostate cancers that won't be treated. Yes, you could argue this favors the insurance companies but, I don't think so.

Many in the medical field have had doubts about the standard PSA based prostate cancer protocol.

Many believe you may have cancer but, of such nature you are more likely to get hit by a falling satillite before this malignancy takes over.

Then there are those like Frank Zappa and Bill Bixby - who had the super fast consuming kind that is going to kill you regardless.

We do not have accurate systems to determine the predicted "nature" of one Prostate adenocarcinoma to another.

I believe it was a real study and not one that favors insurance companies, and certainly not health care areas.

Moi

Dave (imported) wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2011 12:10 pm Actually, this is a good recommendation. There is a greater chance of getting a bad PSA result and not having cancer than getting a bad PSA result and having cancer and most of the treatment does no good, does not increase the length of life.

You got it. We have had more and more men having prostatectomies or radiation treatment for very early prostate cancers which may or may not develop into something. Let us face it, the treatment may be worse than the disease.

Many men who opt for a radical prostatectomy will suffer irreversible impotence which is beyond any treatment's ability to make him erect. They may leak urine and that too can not be controlled.

For radiation, either open beam or focused or brachytherapy, the undesired results can include the above plus fecal incontinence, rectal fistures and the inablility to perform further treatment if the cancer comes back.

If you have stage 2 prostate cancer, you need to do something; the exact treatment will vary depending on the prognosis, the patient's wishes and goals, and the urologists own biases.

A stage 1 tumor probably deserves watchful waiting for most patients.

Yah, you betcha, I studied this a lot when I suspected I had cancer. My PSA went up to 14.4. It was caused by granulatomous prostatitis. My urologist said, given my age and the fact that they did a 14 needle biopsy and found no evidence of CA, I would never have prostate cancer.

If your prostate is enlarged or lumpy, by all means, a PSA is advised. If it is high, I would strongly urge having a 14 needle biopsy. This is not a big deal. It is a bit uncomfortable, but not seriously painful.

Speed

Interesting articile on this subject:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/am- ... ontroversy

I think the PSA should still be done, but any treatment shouldn't be done ONLY because of the results of the PSA test. Need more diagnosis than just a PSA. PSA can be elevated in people who don't have any Prostate Cancer at all.

janekane (imported) wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2011 9:04 am In diploid animals with haploid gametes, I find that conception invariably is the cause of death.

In ALL animals, being conceived is eventually the cause of death...

BUT, lets not forget that it is also the cause of life!!!

The question is about the value of PSA testing.

If the test shows a lot of false positives, and if many doctors recommend surgery based on this test

then the test may do more harm than good. It might be quite reasonable to ask for a digital exam

before ordering a PSA.

Recently there has been a reduction in the suggested frequency of mammograms, not to encourage

breast cancer but for the same general reason, they are not needed as frequently as some doctors

prescribe them.

CYA medicine costs everybody.