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

Congress settled the FY26 question in February, with NCI receiving $7.352 billion, an increase of $128 million over the prior year. After a year in which cancer center directors spent an extraordinary share of their leadership attention defending the research enterprise, that outcome deserves to be called what it was: a win.
Harold P. Freeman, a surgeon who started his career in Harlem, where, in addition to performing surgeries, he pioneered the system of patient navigation, and who studied health disparities and served as president of the American Cancer Society and chair of the President’s Cancer Panel, died on Aug. 11. He was 93.
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