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

Those of us who have devoted our careers to treating recalcitrant cancers know the heartbreak of walking alongside an individual facing an advanced diagnosis. We not only shoulder the clinical responsibility, but also the emotional weight that accompanies every step of that journey as each patient’s story becomes connected to our own.
If you believe in the miraculous healing power of ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and the harm from vaccination for HPV and COVID-19, you’ve got a powerful friend in Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), chair of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
In a poignant keynote punctuated with anecdotes about grief, American Society of Clinical Oncology’s immediate past president Eric Small emphasized that the annual conference is not just about scientific discovery, but about a responsibility to translate discoveries into better outcomes for cancer patients globally. 
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