Implications of the New AUA Guidelines on Prostate Cancer Detection in the U.S.
- 21 May 2014
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Nature in Current Urology Reports
- Vol. 15 (7) , 1-7
Abstract
In 2012, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued a blanket “D” recommendation against all prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based early detection efforts for prostate cancer, reflecting critical misinterpretations of the major evidence regarding benefits and harms of such testing. Against the backdrop of the ensuing controversy, in 2013 the American Urological Association (AUA) published a new, methodologically rigorous guideline. This guideline recommended that men aged 55–69 be offered biennial screening in the setting of shared decision-making, that men under 40 or over 69 years of age should not be screened routinely, and that evidence was insufficient to recommend screening for men aged 40–54 years. While it has received criticism with regard to the age-based recommendations, the AUA guideline reflects a far better and more balanced presentation of the available evidence than the USPSTF statement. However, because the USPSTF is far more influential than the AUA among primary care providers, the ultimate impact of the new AUA guideline on practice patterns may be limited. Optimizing early detection practices should involve consensus-building incorporating both primary care and specialist input, with the goals of minimizing overtreatment of low-risk disease while continuing to reduce prostate cancer mortality rates through early detection and aggressive management of high-risk disease.Keywords
This publication has 49 references indexed in Scilit:
- Radical Prostatectomy versus Observation for Localized Prostate CancerNew England Journal of Medicine, 2012
- Prostate Cancer Screening in the Randomized Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial: Mortality Results after 13 Years of Follow-upJNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2012
- Long-term projections of the harm-benefit trade-off in prostate cancer screening are more favorable than previous short-term estimatesJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2011
- Assessing contamination and compliance in the prostate component of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening TrialClinical Trials, 2010
- Low Annual Caseloads of United States Surgeons Conducting Radical ProstatectomyJournal of Urology, 2009
- Outcomes of Localized Prostate Cancer Following Conservative ManagementJAMA, 2009
- Mortality Results from a Randomized Prostate-Cancer Screening TrialNew England Journal of Medicine, 2009
- Screening and Prostate-Cancer Mortality in a Randomized European StudyNew England Journal of Medicine, 2009
- Lead Time and Overdiagnosis in Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening: Importance of Methods and ContextJNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2009
- Preoperative Nomogram Predicting the 10-Year Probability of Prostate Cancer Recurrence After Radical ProstatectomyJNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2006