How not to develop a medical intervention: Learning from the prostate screening debacle

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on email
Share on print

This week, the USPSTF issued its draft guidelines for prostate cancer screening. They propose shifting from task force’s recommendation against routine prostate cancer screening to a recommendation for informed and shared decision-making in which the physician and patient discuss the real risks of harm and the potential for life saving benefit before deciding on screening.

To access this subscriber-only content please log in or subscribe.

If your institution has a site license, log in with IP-login or register for a sponsored account.*
*Not all site licenses are enrolled in sponsored accounts.

Login Subscribe

YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

In April 2025, announcements from the two most influential biomedical agencies in the US, the FDA and the NIH, declared that both will seek to reduce and minimize animal-based testing and experimentation. These declarations sparked joy in some circles, and deep concern in others that was reflected in a 28% fall in the share price of Charles River Labs (NYSE: NYSE:CRL). 
Over the past three decades, cancer genetics has transformed precision oncology. Germline testing has advanced from single-gene Sanger sequencing to parallel sequencing of hundreds of genes, while tumor (somatic) testing has expanded with the rise of targeted therapies based on point mutations, copy number changes and other alterations. 
Otis W. Brawley, MD, MACP
Chief medical officer, American Cancer Society

Never miss an issue!

Get alerts for our award-winning coverage in your inbox.

Login