Possible re-post, Prostrate testing.

[Mojocvh]

Heard a word that the "gov" on advice from three female professional committee has binned further testing using PSA.

Whilst I don't dispute the anomalies, creating a backstop PSA reading can only be good.

or is it a case of Harmans anti male crusade still working through her foot soldiers?

Mo.

oops

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11930979

http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/435977-nhs-men-ple...

Edited by Mojocvh on Friday 10th December 23:05

[Antonia]

Mojocvh said:

Heard a word that the "gov" on advice from three female professional committee has binned further testing using PSA.

Edited by Mojocvh on Friday 10th December 23:05

The committee has decided that the PSA level is a poor SCREENING test. It is not that they have "binned further testing". A screening test has to meet certain criteria to be appropriate for wide spread screening of the population. Unfortunately the PSA level just does not meet those criteria. It will still be used to track disease and evaluate prognosis.

[Derby]

Um I think that you mean PROSTATE not prostrate.......

[mph1977]

PSA can be raised by BPH, infections , irritation and recent / frequent ejaculation ... there are too many false postives and too many false negatives to rely on PSA for screening

the wikipedia page has links to around 40 papers on the subject

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostate-specific_ant...

DRE is probably a better screening test ..

[ShadownINja]

Or perhaps women hate the fact that breast screening requires the breasts to be clamped while men just have a blood test. I expect the committee will be proposing we have our testicles clamped in a vice while a 6 inch diameter anoscope is used so that a GP can test our prostate with a baseball bat.

Edited by ShadownINja on Sunday 12th December 12:06

[Delbox]

It's true that the PSA test can be a crude indicator of prostate cancer - and a low reading cannot necessarily give confidence that cancer is not present.

Two years ago yesterday, I underwent a lengthy operation at Addenbrookes, having my prostate removed by a surgical team using a Da Vinci robotic procedure. The outcome has been perfect and I have no further evidence that the cancer remains.

However, what is important is that my cancer was detected by a PSA test. At the age of 50 yrs, my PSA was scored right on the limit for someone of my age: around 4; therefore a further test was taken and, because it confirmed the figure, I was referred to a consultant. The outcome was that I underwent a prostate biopsy that revealed over 30% cancerous cells on one side of the organ. As a result, I was booked in for the operation and just 2 months after the initial test my recovery started - and 5 weeks after that I returned to work.

So, why did I have the PSA test in the first place? My father died of prostate cancer which metasticised into his bones - even after the prostate had been removed. He left it too late - thinking that his urinary symptoms were to be expected at his age! Whilst he was being treated, his consultant advised me to seek a PSA test at age 45 yrs and then every 5 yrs thereafter; the first test was clear, the second indicated cancer which was subsequently confirmed and the operation scheduled.

So, yes it has its limitations - but, in my case, a PSA test certainly lengthened, if not saved, my life.

Del

Edited by Delbox on Sunday 12th December 14:36

[ShadownINja]

Sorry to hear about your father but glad you managed to get it dealt with.

[mph1977]

Delbox said:

I<snip>

So, why did I have the PSA test in the first place? My father died of prostate cancer which metasticised into his bones - even after the prostate had been removed. He left it too late - thinking that his urinary symptoms were to be expected at his age! Whilst he was being treated, his consultant advised me to seek a PSA test at age 45 yrs and then every 5 yrs thereafter; the first test was clear, the second indicated cancer which was subsequently confirmed and the operation scheduled.

So, yes it has its limitations - but, in my case, a PSA test certainly lengthened, if not saved, my life.

Del

Edited by Delbox on Sunday 12th December 14:36

that is the key factor though , it's a clinical assessment of your individualised likelihood given a variety of factors rather than just randomly taking blood of everyone over 40 , missing people with Ca. Prostate because their PSA is within normal limits and subjecting people with entirely normal prostates to ?yearly trans-rectal biopsy because their PSA is raised - as once you have a screening pathway you'd have to follow it and once someone is identified as high(er) risk you wouldn't dare take them off the increased vigiliance and regualr diagnostic testing pathway .... alternatively we have an army of screeners paid to stick their fingers up middle aged men's bottoms ...

[ShadownINja]

Or HMRC employees, as the government likes to call them.