PURPOSE: Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men and the second most common cause of cancer death in men, and yet controversy continues to surround the practice of prostate cancer screening. Despite recent studies that have cast doubt over the true efficacy of breast cancer screening programs, the National Cancer Institute continues to support breast cancer screening and it has withheld endorsement of widespread prostate cancer screening. Criticisms of prostate cancer screening include the financial burden of screening, the morbidity of prostate biopsy, the low positive predictive value of screening, the over treatment of an indolent disease and the lack of evidence demonstrating a mortality benefit due to screening. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We formulated a comprehensive discussion addressing the criticisms of prostate cancer screening. RESULTS: In an effort to highlight the importance of prostate cancer screening we noted how concerns regarding cost, morbidity and low positive predictive value are common to widely accepted screening programs for other common malignancies. We also draw attention to the danger of abandoning prostate cancer screening, a practice that is called into question by watchful waiting series and Markov modeling of prostate cancer treatment. Finally, we observed how the implementation of prostate cancer screening in the United States has led to the phenomenon of stage migration and paralleled the decrease in the prostate cancer mortality rate. CONCLUSIONS: The prostate specific antigen era has brought great promise for improving the prognosis of prostate cancer. We must continue to seek support for widespread prostate cancer screening.
PURPOSE:Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men and the second most common cause of cancer death in men, and yet controversy continues to surround the practice of prostate cancer screening. Despite recent studies that have cast doubt over the true efficacy of breast cancer screening programs, the National Cancer Institute continues to support breast cancer screening and it has withheld endorsement of widespread prostate cancer screening. Criticisms of prostate cancer screening include the financial burden of screening, the morbidity of prostate biopsy, the low positive predictive value of screening, the over treatment of an indolent disease and the lack of evidence demonstrating a mortality benefit due to screening. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We formulated a comprehensive discussion addressing the criticisms of prostate cancer screening. RESULTS: In an effort to highlight the importance of prostate cancer screening we noted how concerns regarding cost, morbidity and low positive predictive value are common to widely accepted screening programs for other common malignancies. We also draw attention to the danger of abandoning prostate cancer screening, a practice that is called into question by watchful waiting series and Markov modeling of prostate cancer treatment. Finally, we observed how the implementation of prostate cancer screening in the United States has led to the phenomenon of stage migration and paralleled the decrease in the prostate cancer mortality rate. CONCLUSIONS: The prostate specific antigen era has brought great promise for improving the prognosis of prostate cancer. We must continue to seek support for widespread prostate cancer screening.