Cookies on this website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Continue' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

The aim of screening is to identify cancers that are potentially curable; before a programme can be introduced, it must satisfy the requirement that it does more good than harm, particularly in terms of survival and quality of life. Prostate cancer is a common disease in older men and presents a significant burden to health services. Prostatic tumours range from small slow-growing lesions to aggressive tumours that metastasise rapidly, but because the natural history of prostate cancer is poorly understood, there is controversy about which screen-detected lesions will become clinically significant. Current methods of screening involve measurement of serum prostate specific antigen, followed by transrectal ultrasound scanning and biopsy, but these lack adequate specificity and sensitivity. There are three major treatment options for localised disease: radical prostatectomy, radical radiotherapy, and monitoring with treatment if required. There is no randomised controlled trial evidence to suggest a survival advantage of any of these treatments, and each has risks. There is intense speculation about future developments in diagnostic testing, molecular markers of progression, and early chemoprevention, but the central question that remains is whether radical treatments can improve survival and quality of life.

Original publication

DOI

10.1016/S1470-2045(00)00005-X

Type

Journal article

Journal

Lancet Oncol

Publication Date

09/2000

Volume

1

Pages

17 - 24

Keywords

Biopsy, Needle, Cost of Illness, Decision Support Techniques, Disease Progression, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Prostate-Specific Antigen, Prostatic Neoplasms, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, United Kingdom, United States