Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Jul;15(7):420.
doi: 10.1007/s11934-014-0420-7.

Implications of the new AUA guidelines on prostate cancer detection in the U.S

Affiliations

Implications of the new AUA guidelines on prostate cancer detection in the U.S

Matthew R Cooperberg. Curr Urol Rep. 2014 Jul.

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest

Dr. Matthew R. Cooperberg declares no potential conflicts of interest.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer Statistics, 2013. CA Cancer J Clin. 2013;63:11–30. doi:10.3322/caac.21166. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Etzioni R, Gulati R, Tsodikov A, et al. The prostate cancer conundrum revisited. Cancer. 2012:n/a–n/a. doi:10.1002/cncr.27594. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    2. Outstanding analysis of the suggestion that the observed decline in prostate cancer mortality in the US over the years can be explained by improvements in treatment rather than by early detection efforts.

    1. Moyer VA US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2012; 157(2): 120–134. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-157-2-201207170-00459. - DOI - PubMed
    2. Although this is a substantially flawed analysis based on an incomplete evidence review, it is important to understand the USPSTF's thought process in generating the "D" recommendation against all prostate cancer screening.

    1. Qaseem A, Barry MJ, Denberg TD, Owens DK, Shekelle P, for the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians*. Screening for Prostate Cancer: A Guidance Statement From the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2013. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-158-10-201305210-00633. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Carter HB, Albertsen PC, Barry MJ, et al. Early detection of prostate cancer: AUA Guideline. J Urol. 2013;190(2):419–426. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2013.04.119. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    2. The 2013 AUA Guideline on Early Detection of Prostate Cancer, discussed at length in the text.