BACKGROUND: At present, clinical practice guidelines for prostate cancer screening are controversial in France. The French National Agency for Health Care Quality does not recommend screening for prostate cancer. In contrast, since 2002 the French Urological Association has been supporting screening. However, both support selected screening for men with risk factors, despite there having been no assessment to date of whether the screening is justified. In 2002, Prostatic Specific Antigen prescriptions increased by 22% over one year and PSA was the first prescription for cancer markers. The history of the pros and cons for prostate cancer screening is summarized. Prostate cancer does not qualify under the World Health Organization's criteria for screening. CONCLUSION: At the present time, prostate cancer mass screening cannot be recommended. Pitfalls for Clinical Guidelines enforcement are discussed.
BACKGROUND: At present, clinical practice guidelines for prostate cancer screening are controversial in France. The French National Agency for Health Care Quality does not recommend screening for prostate cancer. In contrast, since 2002 the French Urological Association has been supporting screening. However, both support selected screening for men with risk factors, despite there having been no assessment to date of whether the screening is justified. In 2002, Prostatic Specific Antigen prescriptions increased by 22% over one year and PSA was the first prescription for cancer markers. The history of the pros and cons for prostate cancer screening is summarized. Prostate cancer does not qualify under the World Health Organization's criteria for screening. CONCLUSION: At the present time, prostate cancer mass screening cannot be recommended. Pitfalls for Clinical Guidelines enforcement are discussed.
Authors: Emmanuel Chirpaz; Marc Colonna; François Menegoz; Pascale Grosclaude; Paul Schaffer; Patrick Arveux; Josette Mace Lesec'h; Catherine Exbrayat; René Schaerer Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2002-01-20 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Anna Bill-Axelson; Lars Holmberg; Mirja Ruutu; Michael Häggman; Swen-Olof Andersson; Stefan Bratell; Anders Spångberg; Christer Busch; Stig Nordling; Hans Garmo; Juni Palmgren; Hans-Olov Adami; Bo Johan Norlén; Jan-Erik Johansson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-05-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: R A Smith; A C von Eschenbach; R Wender; B Levin; T Byers; D Rothenberger; D Brooks; W Creasman; C Cohen; C Runowicz; D Saslow; V Cokkinides; H Eyre Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2001 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Ingrid W van der Cruijsen-Koeter; André N Vis; Monique J Roobol; Mark F Wildhagen; Harry J de Koning; Theo H van der Kwast; Fritz H Schröder Journal: J Urol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: M Sant; T Aareleid; F Berrino; M Bielska Lasota; P M Carli; J Faivre; P Grosclaude; G Hédelin; T Matsuda; H Møller; T Möller; A Verdecchia; R Capocaccia; G Gatta; A Micheli; M Santaquilani; P Roazzi; D Lisi Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2003 Impact factor: 32.976