Conexiant
Login
  • The Analytical Scientist
  • The Cannabis Scientist
  • The Medicine Maker
  • The Ophthalmologist
  • The Pathologist
  • The Traditional Scientist
The Pathologist
  • Explore Pathology

    Explore

    • Latest
    • Insights
    • Case Studies
    • Opinion & Personal Narratives
    • Research & Innovations
    • Product Profiles

    Featured Topics

    • Molecular Pathology
    • Infectious Disease
    • Digital Pathology

    Issues

    • Latest Issue
    • Archive
  • Subspecialties
    • Oncology
    • Histology
    • Cytology
    • Hematology
    • Endocrinology
    • Neurology
    • Microbiology & Immunology
    • Forensics
    • Pathologists' Assistants
  • Training & Education

    Career Development

    • Professional Development
    • Career Pathways
    • Workforce Trends

    Educational Resources

    • Guidelines & Recommendations
    • App Notes

    Events

    • Webinars
    • Live Events
  • Events
    • Live Events
    • Webinars
  • Profiles & Community

    People & Profiles

    • Power List
    • Voices in the Community
    • Authors & Contributors
  • Multimedia
    • Video
    • Podcasts
    • Pathology Captures
Subscribe
Subscribe

False

The Pathologist / Issues / 2016 / Apr / A PSA on PSA
Oncology Screening and monitoring Oncology Precision medicine

A PSA on PSA

The cost of prostate cancer screening can outweigh its benefits – but the right strategy can maximize the return on investment

By Michael Schubert 04/22/2016 1 min read

Share

The controversy over prostate cancer screening is a familiar one to pathologists. To screen, or not to screen? Many believe the costs and risks outweigh the benefits, and feel that more personalized – or more conservative – strategies to optimize screening are needed. But what are those strategies, and will they really help? Until now, experts have been uncertain. A new economic analysis from Seattle, which analyzes the cost-effectiveness of 18 different prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening strategies, mayhold answers (1). The study involved creating a simulated cohort of 40-year-old men. The cohort was run through each of the 18 screening strategies, which varied by starting and stopping ages, screening intervals, biopsy referral criteria and choice of treatment practice (either contemporary, based on age and cancer stage and grade, or selective, wherein cases with Gleason score <7 or stage

With contemporary treatment, the study found that only strategies with age-dependent thresholds or biopsy referrals for patients with PSA levels >10 ng/mL provided increased quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The only strategy that provided effective returns in terms of cost per QALY was screening patients aged 55 to 69 every four years. The more conservative selective treatment approach provided somewhat more benefit; all strategies were associated with increased QALYs and several (involving different age thresholds, screening intervals and referral criteria) were cost-effective. What does this mean for the clinic? PSA screening can, according to this research, be cost-effective – but only if both screening and subsequent treatment are conservatively managed. It’s important to ensure that such approaches don’t overlook patients in need of more extensive care, though, and if the correct balance can be found, it’s possible that the future will see fewer PSA tests ordered, fewer patients sent for biopsies, and an improvement in the cost-to-benefit ratio of prostate cancer screening.

Newsletters

Receive the latest analytical scientist news, personalities, education, and career development – weekly to your inbox.

Newsletter Signup Image

References

  1. JA Roth et al., “Economic analysis of prostate-specific antigen screening and selective treatment strategies”, JAMA Oncol, [Epub ahead of print] (2016). PMID: 27010943.

About the Author(s)

Michael Schubert

While obtaining degrees in biology from the University of Alberta and biochemistry from Penn State College of Medicine, I worked as a freelance science and medical writer. I was able to hone my skills in research, presentation and scientific writing by assembling grants and journal articles, speaking at international conferences, and consulting on topics ranging from medical education to comic book science. As much as I’ve enjoyed designing new bacteria and plausible superheroes, though, I’m more pleased than ever to be at Texere, using my writing and editing skills to create great content for a professional audience.

More Articles by Michael Schubert

Explore More in Analytical Science

Dive deeper into the analytical science. Explore the latest articles, case studies, expert insights, and groundbreaking research.

False

Advertisement

Recommended

False

Related Content

Flexible Solutions With FlexVUE
Screening and monitoring
Flexible Solutions With FlexVUE

December 29, 2021

1 min read

Quickly customize your immune panels with Ultivue’s new innovation

What’s New in Infectious Disease? (December 2021)
Screening and monitoring
What’s New in Infectious Disease?

December 23, 2021

1 min read

The latest research and news on COVID-19 and the infectious disease landscape

A Pig In a Poke
Screening and monitoring
A Pig In a Poke

October 21, 2016

1 min read

When importing livestock for food or breeding, European countries may inadvertently open their borders to superbugs as well

Sneaky Superbugs
Screening and monitoring
Sneaky Superbugs

October 21, 2016

1 min read

Norway’s strict LA-MRSA transmission measures prevent the import of almost all live pigs – but the bacteria have found a new way in

False

The Pathologist
Subscribe

About

  • About Us
  • Work at Conexiant Europe
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Advertise With Us
  • Contact Us

Copyright © 2025 Texere Publishing Limited (trading as Conexiant), with registered number 08113419 whose registered office is at Booths No. 1, Booths Park, Chelford Road, Knutsford, England, WA16 8GS.