Cargando…
Screening asymptomatic men for prostate cancer: A comparison of international guidelines on prostate-specific antigen testing
OBJECTIVE: To summarise and compare the key recommendations on prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening for prostate cancer, and so highlight where more evidence is required to facilitate consistent recommendations. METHODS: The Medline database and websites of 18 national screening organisat...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
SAGE Publications
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9574423/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36062629 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/09691413221119238 |
Sumario: | OBJECTIVE: To summarise and compare the key recommendations on prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening for prostate cancer, and so highlight where more evidence is required to facilitate consistent recommendations. METHODS: The Medline database and websites of 18 national screening organisations and professional associations were searched between January 2010 and November 2020 to identify screening guidelines published in English, considering recent clinical trials. RESULTS: Population-based PSA testing of asymptomatic men is not widely recommended. Guidelines emphasize shared patient-clinician decision making. For ‘average-risk’ men choosing to be screened, the recommended age varies from 50–55 to 70 years, alongside consideration of life expectancy (ranging from 7–15 years). Screening intervals, when specified, are biennial (most common), annual, or determined from baseline PSA. The earliest age for screening high-risk men (frequently defined as of African descent or with a family history of prostate cancer) is 40 years, but recommendations often defer to clinical judgement. CONCLUSIONS: Population screening of asymptomatic men is not widely recommended. Instead, balancing the potential harms and benefits of PSA testing is endorsed. Variation between guidelines stems from differing interpretations of key trials and could lead to clinician-dependent screening views. The development of clinical decision aids and international consensus on guidelines may help reduce national and international variation on how men are counselled. |
---|