The Scandinavian

study reported a 40% reduction in prostate cancer mortality attributable to PSA screening, which is consistent with the declining prostate cancer mortality statistics seen in the United States.36 Despite the compelling prostate cancer survival advantage of prostate cancer screening, the US Preventative Task Force (USPTF) made a general recommendation against PSA screening because they interpreted the literature to show that PSA screening produced more harm than benefit.42 The debate regarding the value of PSA screening played Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical out in the lay press for several weeks. How the primary care physician will react to the controversy regarding PSA screening is unclear. There Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical is also uncertainty as to whether the Center for Medicare LY188011 Services (CMS) will continue to reimburse for PSA screening; if the USPTF recommends against PSA screening, then CMS may decide to cease PSA reimbursement. The ultimate decision regarding coverage for PSA screening will certainly influence the proportion of men who will be screened in the future. Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical A randomized study comparing radical prostatectomy (RP) versus watchful waiting for localized disease diagnosed in the pre-PSA screening era reported that 40% of the men undergoing RP received ADT.43 There is no doubt that prostate screening decreases

prostate cancer mortality, but this occurs at the expense of subjecting many men with low-risk Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical disease to unnecessary treatment. Rather than summarily abandoning prostate cancer screening, there is a need to rationally risk stratify newly diagnosed cancers in order to maintain the reduction in prostate cancer mortality while limiting unnecessary treatment. There has been a decline in the use of ADT for prostate cancer due

in part to fewer men developing metastatic Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical disease as the result of screening and subsequent curative localized therapies. There has also been a higher threshold for selleck compound administering these treatments due to increased awareness of potentially significant adverse events. If the diagnostic milieu is turned back to the pre-screening era, this may ironically, and unfortunately, result in more ADT utilization. More men will once again present with locally advanced or metastatic disease that is no longer amenable to localized cure and will be more appropriately managed with ADT. Adverse Effects of ADT T suppression is associated with Carfilzomib bone loss,44 which may also be influenced by other factors such as obesity, age, and sedentary lifestyle. Moreover, ADT and attendant bone demineralization is associated with an increased risk of skeletal fracture.45 Skeletal fractures are of particular concern, given their documented correlation with decreased overall survival in men with prostate cancer.46 ADT has also been correlated with several metabolic complications.