Replies

I’m sorry, that was a bit succinct. Referring to your comment about not being sure of the age of those autopsied, the usual discussion has to do with those in their nineties. The percentage of them found with prostate cancer is also in the nineties. You could say that the percentage of PC in the entire male population of the U.S. roughly tracks the age of the individuals. It goes undiscovered in most because it never presents symptoms. If you just arbitrarily biopsy people with ‘normal’ PSA’s, you’ll find a lot of it, most of which the patient would have been better off if you hadn’t found. Thus, the whole screening controversy.

Interestingly enough, the National Health Service in New Zealand a few years back did an extensive study of screening from the standpoint of public health, and reached a very similar conclusion to the current ACS paper. They no longer do routine PSA screenings because, on balance, the side effects of treating cancers that weren’t going to go anywhere had a greater negative impact than waiting for symptoms to present themselves. Which is, of course, all well and good from a public health standpoint, but not much use to the individual patient who’s trying to make a treatment decision.