Interesting view on having PSA test

[Happy happy]

Men concerned about prostate cancer should think before asking for a PSA test | Prostate cancer | The Guardian

[Sheryl]

The reference -- to which you failed to post a link -- is not to an article by the Guardian but rather a letter in its letters volumn. Which contains outdated content.

 

The Guardian as a paper does not recommrnd against the PSA test.

 

PSA is a useful screening tool but not in itself diagnostic. 

 

 

[Lorry]

The content is not so much outdated (the referenced studies are fairly recent) as debated. 

As for the usefulness of PSA, German guidelines discuss PSA on 10 pages,  without any conclusive result. A bit too much for this forum.

Sweden (and Norway) obviously recommends the Stockholm3 test, which is also used by the university hospital of Zurich.

[Happy happy]

14 hours ago, Sheryl said:

The reference -- to which you failed to post a link -- is not to an article by the Guardian but rather a letter in its letters volumn. Which contains outdated content.

 

The Guardian as a paper does not recommrnd against the PSA test.

 

PSA is a useful screening tool but not in itself diagnostic. 

 

 

Sheryl:

 

I think u being a bit harsh on me.

 

I thought I was posting a link when posting the reference.

It is clear reading the article that it contains an opinion from a letter to the Guardian and IS NOT the view of the paper.

I agree the content is possibly dated.

 

I have regular PSA testing as recommended by my doctors.

All I am saying is that the article is interesting.

 

I would further be interested to know if anyone agrees that they should think twice before having a PSA test and if so why.

 

[Easterneye]

Regardless of the inns and outs of the Gaurdian if your over 45 go get yourself a PSA blood test ,, this alone won’t determine prostate cancer ,, but an elevated PSA will lead you next to an mri scan which will deffo indicate cancer if it’s there then the extent of the cancer will be determined by the dreaded transperenial biopsies under local anaesthetic , plus a full body CT scan looking for any secondaries along the way .

Had mine done annually the last 11 years all well within PSA range , elevated up two years ago and went through a year of diagnosis and treatments .

Now the worrying bit  LIKE THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF OTHER MEN I HAD / HAVE ZERO SYMPTOMS 

Get tested , don’t let the silent killer get away with its deadly work inside you before it’s too late 

[CallumWK]

Although I have no reasons to believe I have prostate issues, I have been reading up on PSA tests recently, and found more sources that advised against such a test.

Main reason was that such a test is not conclusive, and often gives false positives, and when people decide to do a biopsy becaue of the results, it actually may make things worse.

[Sheryl]

50 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

Although I have no reasons to believe I have prostate issues, I have been reading up on PSA tests recently, and found more sources that advised against such a test.

Main reason was that such a test is not conclusive, and often gives false positives, and when people decide to do a biopsy becaue of the results, it actually may make things worse.

Nowadays biopsies are not done based on PSA test alone.  If indicated, there are additional blood tests that can be done and  special MRIs.  Urine cultures can also help  rule a prostate infection in or out.  In some individual cases, if there is a high index of suspicion for prostatitis, a doctor might opt to treat presumptively for infection first and then repeat the PSA later.

 

A PSA result is not a positive or negative, it is a number on a scale. This number must be viewed in the clinical context. For example, a mildly elevated PSA in an older  man with known BPH is an altogether different matter than a very elevated PSA in a younger man. Ditto a highre PSA in a man with risk factors for infection. The rate of rise in a PSA is also of significance.  A stable PSA that is just a bit elevated is very different from a steadily rising PSA...especially since the aim is not to find all prostate cancers but rather to find clinically significant prostate cancers (i.e. aggressive cancers as opposed to slow growing) , a very different matter.

 

PSA just screens and potentially signals the need for additional tests. Has to be interpreted in the overall patient context: age, known prostate conditions, trend in PSA level, findings on digital exam etc.

[Sheryl]

A post referring source of inaccurate information has been removed, as has a post on moderation.

[Happy happy]

1 hour ago, scubascuba3 said:

As i said further up, yes think twice, look at Dr John McDougall who has an article about this

Many thanks to scuascuba3. I watched the video by Dr John Dougall (searched and found it on Google) and it is certainly thought-provoking. 

[Sheryl]

3 minutes ago, Happy happy said:

Many thanks to scuascuba3. I watched the video by Dr John Dougall (searched and found it on Google) and it is certainly thought-provoking. 

Be advised that this video was misleading at the time it was made and is now more than a decade out of date.

 

It's contents are not factual.

 

Many lives can be, and are, saved through early diagnosis and treatment of aggressive prostate cancers. Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in men. And a particularly painful type of death. It is well worth avoiding this. Considerable advances in diagnosis and treatment have occurred i nthe past decade and PSA is just an initial screening test. It does nto immediately lead to biopsy.

[Happy happy]

18 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

Nowadays biopsies are not done based on PSA test alone.  If indicated, there are additional blood tests that can be done and  special MRIs.  Urine cultures can also help  rule a prostate infection in or out.  In some individual cases, if there is a high index of suspicion for prostatitis, a doctor might opt to treat presumptively for infection first and then repeat the PSA later.

 

A PSA result is not a positive or negative, it is a number on a scale. This number must be viewed in the clinical context. For example, a mildly elevated PSA in an older  man with known BPH is an altogether different matter than a very elevated PSA in a younger man. Ditto a highre PSA in a man with risk factors for infection. The rate of rise in a PSA is also of significance.  A stable PSA that is just a bit elevated is very different from a steadily rising PSA...especially since the aim is not to find all prostate cancers but rather to find clinically significant prostate cancers (i.e. aggressive cancers as opposed to slow growing) , a very different matter.

 

PSA just screens and potentially signals the need for additional tests. Has to be interpreted in the overall patient context: age, known prostate conditions, trend in PSA level, findings on digital exam etc.

Thank u Sheryl:

What you say more or less corresponds with the advice given to me by doctors in Thailand.