Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Prostate cancer screening: a decision analysis

S B Cantor1, S J Spann, R J Volk

  • 1Department of Family Medicine, University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, USA.

The Journal of Family Practice
|July 1, 1995
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Nitrate and ammonium uptake by maize: adaptation during relief from nitrogen suppression.

The New phytologist·2021
Same author

Coronary artery calcium scoring: an evidence-based guide for primary care physicians.

Journal of internal medicine·2020
Same author

Comparison of multimedia and printed patient education tools for patients with osteoporosis: a 6-month randomized controlled trial.

Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA·2019
Same author

Economic evaluation of DNA ploidy analysis vs liquid-based cytology for cervical screening.

British journal of cancer·2015
Same author

Nitrate influx and efflux by intact wheat seedlings: Effects of prior nitrate nutrition.

Planta·2014
Same author

Daily changes in nitrate influx, efflux and metabolism in maize and pearl millet.

Planta·2013
Same journal

Does taking BP medicine at night (vs morning) result in fewer cardiovascular events?

The Journal of family practice·2023
Same journal

Preventing RSV in children and adults: A vaccine update.

The Journal of family practice·2023
Same journal

Essential oils: How safe? How effective?

The Journal of family practice·2023
Same journal

51-year-old woman • History of Graves disease • General fatigue, palpitations, and hand tremors • Dx?

The Journal of family practice·2023
Same journal

Renewing the dream.

The Journal of family practice·2023
Same journal

55-year-old woman • Myalgias and progressive symmetrical proximal weakness • History of unilateral renal agenesis, type 2 diabetes, and hyperlipidemia • Dx?

The Journal of family practice·2023
See all related articles

Annual prostate cancer screening is not recommended when considering men's quality-of-life preferences. Mathematical modeling suggests that not screening offers better outcomes than screening for prostate cancer.

Area of Science:

  • Urology
  • Decision Analysis
  • Public Health

Background:

  • Prostate cancer screening in men remains controversial due to a lack of definitive randomized clinical trials.
  • Mathematical modeling is employed to assess the clinical risks and benefits of prostate cancer screening.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate the efficacy of annual prostate cancer screening using a decision-analytic model.
  • To incorporate patient utilities regarding adverse outcomes of prostate cancer treatment.

Main Methods:

  • A Markov decision-analytic model simulated annual screening for asymptomatic men starting at age 50.
  • Screening methods included digital rectal examination, transrectal ultrasound, and prostate-specific antigen testing.
  • Patient utilities for treatment side effects were assessed through interviews.

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • The model favored no screening over annual screening when patient quality-of-life preferences were considered (24.14 vs 23.47 quality-adjusted life years).
  • The decision's sensitivity to utilities for impotence and urethral stricture was noted, particularly for men under 65.
  • Ignoring treatment side effects favored screening (24.86 vs 24.22 years of life expectancy).

Conclusions:

  • Annual prostate cancer screening is not advised when patient quality-of-life preferences are factored into the decision-making process.
  • The study highlights the importance of patient-reported outcomes in prostate cancer screening guidelines.