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

Physician-scientists by day, a funk-loving musical troupe by night. You may have seen The CheckPoints—a 13 member cover band with a three-piece brass section and Jim Allison on harmonica—movin’, groovin’, and gettin’ down as a mainstay closing act at ASCO, AACR, or the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer annual meetings.
At the 2026 Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago, results from the phase III HARMONi-6 trial were presented at the plenary session and published simultaneously in The Lancet. The HARMONi-6 trial tested a novel bispecific antibody that engages PD-1 and VEGF (ivonescimab), given with platinum-doublet chemotherapy to patients with previously untreated advanced squamous non-small cell lung cancer. 
In 2026, more than 900 million people are estimated to be regularly using generative artificial intelligence—computer systems capable of creating human-like text, images, audio, video, and other original content. AI is becoming integrated into nearly every aspect of daily life. Health care is no exception. 
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