bmcgonig
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2009
- Messages
- 1,580
You weren't reading the post properly, that's all.I just asked for a source, that’s all.
The "marked increase" had nothing to do with your 5%
You weren't reading the post properly, that's all.I just asked for a source, that’s all.
Then again every urologist would profit from increased PSA testing so then who could we trust. They're the experts.It has always been my habit to discount claims of urgency made by people who stand to profit from them. The language quoted in Post 148 is by Jamie Bearse, CEO of ZERO, an organization that raises money to fight prostate cancer. Of course he is going to want everyone to be committed to identifying prostate cancer.
That said, my PSA level is checked every year as part of my yearly physical. If it spiked, I would have it checked again.
Then again every urologist would profit from increased PSA testing so then who could we trust. They're the experts.
I've got nothing against urologists or any other doctor, but I'd be a fool to ignore the fact that people, all people, respond to financial incentives. I am by nature and training a cynic. If you want to get closer to the truth of any situation, always ask "cui bono?" In modern parlance, "follow the money".Then again every urologist would profit from increased PSA testing so then who could we trust. They're the experts.
I got that. For the third time, where are you getting information to support your statement below?You weren't reading the post properly, that's all.
The "marked increase" had nothing to do with your 5%
I haven’t read that anywhere and I’d like to know if it’s true.Since the time screening was deemphasized there had been a marked increase in people finding out in the ER after it has metastatisized.
+1. I would like to know if it is true also. I found this NIH review from a couple of years ago that provides some support but is there any more definitive study?https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5341610/I got that. For the third time, where are you getting information to support your statement below?
I haven’t read that anywhere and I’d like to know if it’s true.
I thought everyone got their blood work done a week or so before a yearly physical. Otherwise, what will you talk to the doctor about? I guess I was wrong.
I got that. For the third time, where are you getting information to support your statement below?
I haven’t read that anywhere and I’d like to know if it’s true.
It’s plausible or I wouldn’t have followed up, but I’d rather see data than what’s floating in your head. The linked article is decidedly more narrow than your original statement. It shows a modest increase in aggressive cancers for men 75 and older. It doesn’t seem to conclude anything men aged 40-75. That’s a far cry from your original statement. Thanks.I don't have a link for everything in my head. I read it online in a discussion between urologists either on medscape or twitter.
If screening is decreased more cancers are going to be found at a later stage, and since the first sign of prostate cancer is sometimes just severe pain, then it'll be found first in the ER.
Less early screening -> more late detection
Why you think that's controversial?
Edit:
https://www.journalofclinicalpathwa...er-rates-metastatic-prostate-cancer-older-men
bmcgonig said:Since the time screening was deemphasized between 2013 vs 2011 there had been a small [-]marked[/-] increase in men over 75 [-]people[/-] finding out in the ER after it has metastasized.
Decreased PSA Screening Leads to Higher Rates of Metastatic Prostate Cancer in Older Men
The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program was utilized to examine data involving incidence rates for 1,107,111 men aged 40 years or older who were diagnosed with pathologically confirmed prostate cancer from 2004 to 2013. Subsequent analysis was stratified by age (<75 vs ≥75 years).
Results of the investigation yielded data indicating that the decline in PSA screening has significantly altered the way prostate cancer now presents. Researchers found 12% of men over the age of 75 were diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer in 2013, compared with 7.8% in 2011. Proportion of men diagnosed with aggressive cancer increased from 68.9% to 72% as well.
Researchers concluded that a definitive correlation exists between changes in prostate cancer screening guidelines and increased metastatic prostate cancer in older men.
It’s plausible or I wouldn’t have followed up, but I’d rather see data than what’s floating in your head. The linked article is decidedly more narrow than your original statement. It shows a modest increase in aggressive cancers for men 75 and older. It doesn’t seem to conclude anything men aged 40-75. That’s a far cry from your original statement. Thanks.
Maybe more accurate...
It’s plausible or I wouldn’t have followed up, but I’d rather see data than what’s floating in your head. The linked article is decidedly more narrow than your original statement. It shows a modest increase in aggressive cancers for men 75 and older. It doesn’t seem to conclude anything men aged 40-75. That’s a far cry from your original statement. Thanks.
Maybe more accurate...
That is definitely an area under scrutiny. I'm sure there are associated studies, in-process, and so on.I don't have a link for everything in my head. I read it online in a discussion between urologists either on medscape or twitter.
If screening is decreased more cancers are going to be found at a later stage, and since the first sign of prostate cancer is sometimes just severe pain, then it'll be found first in the ER.
Less early screening -> more late detection
Why you think that's controversial?
Edit:
https://www.journalofclinicalpathwa...er-rates-metastatic-prostate-cancer-older-men
Anybody over 40 should be getting PSA tests to go along with their testosterone replacement therapy !
https://www.healthline.com/health/mens-health/high-psa-no-cancer#bph
8 Non-Cancerous Causes of High PSA Levels
Age
BPH
UTI
Prostatitis
Ejaculation
Some studies have looked at the effects of ejaculation on PSA levels.
Good link/resource, though it also says start at age 50. Too bad they neglect to mention directly a simple PSA retest in 4-6 weeks, making sure to avoid the other factors that increase PSA results, as a best first course. I strongly disagree with going straight from high PSA to biopsy with NO other indications.Anybody over 40 should be getting PSA tests to go along with their testosterone replacement therapy !
https://www.healthline.com/health/mens-health/high-psa-no-cancer#bph
8 Non-Cancerous Causes of High PSA Levels
Age
BPH
UTI
Prostatitis
Ejaculation
Some studies have looked at the effects of ejaculation on PSA levels. One studyTrusted Source published in 2016 found that PSA levels rise in some men after ejaculation. They may remain higher than their typical baseline level for up to 24 hours afterward.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4920563/
Parathyroid hormone
Injury
Surgery
Cancer
I'm not sure who said anything about ignoring a PSA test. It's what you do after a potentially high result that's in question.People.....get your PSA test. Ignore it at your own peril. It is a start and a warning that something MIGHT be wrong.
I'm not sure who said anything about ignoring a PSA test. It's what you do after a potentially high result that's in question.
Rectal exam probably doesn't increase PSA much. Link:
https://www.jwatch.org/jw199503100000006/1995/03/10/does-rectal-exam-increase-psa-levels
ER doesn't come that early. [emoji4]I can't reply until I know if this is a PG-13 board or an R-rated board
I hear people telling me not to get checked/tested once I reach 75 because I'll probably die from something else even if I have PC. But I'm planning on continued checks/testing until I have some other health condition that suggests my expiration date is within a couple of years.