Clinical Case Database / Category: Case Based Discussion
Prostate cancer screening: the ongoing debate
Publication details
Miss Faith McMeekin MBBS, BSc (Hons), MRCS (Lond)
Foundation Years Journal, volume 4, issue 4, p.38 (123Doc Education, London, April 2010)
Abstract
A 67-year-old gentleman presented to his GP with worsening lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTs) of poor flow and nocturia. On referral to Urology he was found to have Gleason grades 3 and 4 localised prostate cancer and underwent radical prostatectomy. During his postoperative follow-up for erectile dysfunction he asked me "why is there no screening programme for prostate cancer, when women have both breast and cervical cancer screening?" To which I found that I did not have the evidence to support my answer. Currently there is no prostate cancer screening in the UK. This article outlines the evidence to suggest why no such screening programme exists. After reading this article you will be provided with the evidence to answer such a question should you be asked in the future.
Access the Clinical Cases Database
A subscription is required to read the full article. Please subscribe using one of the options below.
| Product | Price | Subscription | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Foundation Years Clinical Cases Database | £29.00 | 6 months | |
| Foundation Years Clinical Cases Database | £39.00 | 12 months |
Authors
Miss Faith McMeekin MBBS, BSc (Hons), MRCS (Lond)
Uro-Oncology Research Registrar
Musgrove Park Hospital
Taunton and Somerset NHS Foundation Trust
Taunton
Somerset TA1 5DA
faith.mcmeekin@tst.nhs.uk
References
1. Andriole GL, Grubb RL, Saundra SB et al. (2009) Mortality Results from a Randomized Prostate-Cancer Screening Trial PLCO. N Engl J Med, 360:1310–1319.
2. Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ et al. (2009) Screening and Prostate Cancer Mortality in a Randomised European Study. N Engl J Med, 360:1320–1328.
3. Donovan J, Hamdy F, Neal D et al. (2003) Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) feasibility study. Health Technol Assess, 7:1–88.
4. Ross LE, Berkowitz Z, Ekwueme DU (2008) Use of the prostate-specific antigen test among US men: findings from the 2005 National Health Interview Survey. Cancer Edidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 17:636–666.
5. Chan EC, Barry MJ, Vernon SW, Ahn C (2006) Brief report: physicians and their personal prostate cancer screening practices with prostate-specific antigen: a national survey. J Gen Intern Med, 21:257–259.
6. Hernandez J, Thompson IM (2004) Prostate-specific antigen. A review of the validation of the most commonly used cancer biomarker. Cancer, 101:894–904.
7. Rao AR, Motiwala HG, Karim OMA (2008) The discovery of prostate specific antigen. BJU International, 101:5–10.
8. Ross KS, Carter HB, Pearson JD, Guess HA (2000) Comparative efficiency of prostate-specific antigen screening strategies for prostate cancer detection. JAMA, 284:1399–1405.
9. Catalona WJ, Smith DS, Ratliff TL et al. (1991) Measurement of prostate-specific antigen in serum as a screening test for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med, 324:1156–1161.
10. Postma R, van Leenders AG, Roobol MJ, Schroder FH, van der Kwast TH (2006) Tumour features in the control and screening arm of a randomised trial of prostate cancer. Eur Urol, 50:70–75.
11. Bangma CH, Roemeling S, Schroder FH (2007) Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of early detected prostate cancer. World J Urol, 25:3–9.
12. Klotz L (2006) Active surveillancec versus radical treatment for favourable risk localised prostate cancer. Curr Treat Options Oncol, 7:355–362.
13. Stark JR, Mucci L, Rothman KJ, Adami H (2009) Prostate cancer screening: the controversy continues. BMJ, 339:784–786.
Disclaimers
Conflict Of Interest
The Journal requires that authors disclose any potential conflict of interest that they may have. This is clearly stated in the Journal’s published “Guidelines for Authors”. The Journal follows the Guidelines against Conflict of Interest published in the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals (http://www.icmje.org/urm_full.pdf).
Financial Statement
The authors of this article have not been paid. The Journal is financed by subscriptions and advertising. The Journal does not receive money from any other sources. The decision to accept or refuse this article for publication was free from financial considerations and was solely the responsibility of the Editorial Panel and Editor-in-Chief.
Patient Consent statement
All pictures and investigations shown in this article are shown with the patients’ consent. We require Authors to maintain patients’ anonymity and to obtain consent to report investigations and pictures involving human subjects when anonymity may be compromised. The Journal follows the Guidelines of the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts (http://www.icmje.org/urm_full.pdf). The Journal requires in its Guidelines for Authors a statement from Authors that “the subject gave informed consent”.
Animal & Human Rights
When reporting experiments on human subjects, the Journal requires authors to indicate whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the HelsinkiDeclaration of 1975, as revised in 2008.
About the Clinical Cases Database
The Foundation Years Clinical Cases Database is a selection of 600 peer-reviewed clinical cases in the field of patient safety and clinical practice, specifically focused on the clinical information needs of junior doctors, based around the Foundation Year Curriculum programme (MMC). The cases have been chosen to align with the Foundation Year Curriculum.
The database is fully searchable, or can be browsed by medical specialty. Abstracts can be read free of charge, however a subscription is required in order to read the complete cases.