Tony said, "
The AUA, ASCO, AMA, ACS, JHU, MSK, UCSF, NCCN and just about
any association without the letters USPSTF in them do not place morbidity ahead of saving lives."
I don't even know what this means, and I have a Master's Degree in English and have taught at the college level. I'm not faulting you, Tony, but this kind of "medical speak" is just impossible for lay people to understand, and I'm not sure it makes that much sense, anyway. Maybe someone can explain in clear, concise language what it means to "place morbidity ahead of saving lives." And is this really an either/or proposition?
Tudpock's comments (see above) resound with common sense and a clear understanding of the relationship between getting a blood test and deciding what, if any action, should follow a bad result on that test.
I think I said as long as three years ago that all this seems like a case of "Ready, fire, aim." The PSA is a blood test. It doesn't even offer a diagnosis, just an indication that further investigation may be warranted, or that perhaps another test should be given in a year or so. A biopsy may or may not be suggested based on the result.
Instead of constantly bickering about the PSA test, we should be demanding that urologists and oncologists be more conservative in their treatment of suspected prostate cancer. They should avoid the rush to surgery or radiation. I don't have any problem with suggesting a biopsy based on a PSA result, but I do have a problem with rushing Gleason 6's with extremely small volume tumors into major surgery. That's where we should be focusing our attention.
Obviously I'm not an expert in the field of urology, but I am absolutely dismayed by the amount of energy that is wasted....simply wasted...in agonizing over the PSA test.
Post Edited (clocknut) : 4/9/2014 3:26:05 PM (GMT-6)