Paper Details

  1. Home
  2. Paper Details

Prostate cancer screening in the prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian cancer screening trial of the National Cancer Institute.

Author: CornettJ E, GohaganJ K, KramerB S, ProrokP C

Clinical TrialA clinical trial is a planned study conducted on humans to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and treatment methods. It aims to explore the possibilities of new treatments and improve the health of patients.
Journal ArticleAn article published in an academic or professional journal that reports original research or scholarly analysis.
Randomized Controlled TrialA clinical trial that randomly assigns participants to treatment and control groups to evaluate the effects of an intervention.

Overview

While the benefits of prostate cancer screening are unknown, potential treatment-related risks exist. The United States has a more enthusiastic approach to screening compared to Europe and Canada. A large, randomized, controlled trial, the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial, began in 1993 to study the effectiveness of prostate cancer screening using PSA and digital rectal exam. The study aims to determine if screening can reduce prostate cancer mortality by 20%. The study includes 74,000 men aged 60-74.
Paper Details　
Original Abstract of the Article :
Screening for prostate cancer and subsequent treatment is of unknown benefit but carries known treatment related morbidity and mortality risks. The recent enthusiasm for screening in the United States contrasts sharply with the more cautious attitudes of the European and Canadian medical communities...See full text at original site
Dr.Camel IconDr.Camel's Paper Summary Blogラクダ博士について

ラクダ博士は、Health Journal が論文の内容を分かりやすく解説するために作成した架空のキャラクターです。
難解な医学論文を、専門知識のない方にも理解しやすいように、噛み砕いて説明することを目指しています。

* ラクダ博士による解説は、あくまで論文の要点をまとめたものであり、原論文の完全な代替となるものではありません。詳細な内容については、必ず原論文をご参照ください。
* ラクダ博士は架空のキャラクターであり、実際の医学研究者や医療従事者とは一切関係がありません。
* 解説の内容は Health Journal が独自に解釈・作成したものであり、原論文の著者または出版社の見解を反映するものではありません。


引用元：
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(17)32412-6

データ提供：米国国立医学図書館（NLM）

Prostate Cancer Screening: A Controversial Desert

The debate surrounding prostate cancer screening is a complex and controversial one. This article delves into the ongoing debate, highlighting the uncertainty surrounding the benefits of screening and the potential risks associated with treatment. It's like navigating a vast desert with shifting sands, where the best path is not always clear.

The authors highlight the need for robust evidence to determine the true effectiveness of prostate cancer screening and its impact on mortality. They emphasize the importance of randomized controlled trials, like a well-planned caravan journey, to gather reliable data and provide a clear path forward.

The Need for Clear Evidence in Prostate Cancer Screening

The study highlights the importance of conducting thorough research to determine the true benefits and risks of prostate cancer screening. Without reliable evidence, it's like navigating a desert without a compass, leading to uncertainty and potentially misguided decisions.

Prostate Health: A Journey with Many Paths

Prostate cancer screening is a complex issue, and it's essential to consult with your healthcare provider to discuss the pros and cons of screening based on your individual health history and risk factors.

Dr. Camel's Conclusion

This article emphasizes the crucial need for robust research to address the complexities of prostate cancer screening. It's a reminder that the path to improved health outcomes is paved with evidence-based decisions and careful consideration of individual needs and risks.

Date :
  1. Date Completed 1994-11-14
  2. Date Revised 2019-06-21
Further Info :

Pubmed ID

7523735

DOI: Digital Object Identifier

10.1016/s0022-5347(17)32412-6

Related Literature

Article Analysis
・Effective treatment of prostate cancer screening
SNS
PICO Info
in preparation
Languages

English

Positive IndicatorAn AI analysis index that serves as a benchmark for how positive the results of the study are. Note that it is a benchmark and requires careful interpretation and consideration of different perspectives.

This site uses cookies. Visit our privacy policy page or click the link in any footer for more information and to change your preferences.