I wrote about something similar a few years ago, specifically as it relates to the use of two stents during an angioplasty procedures instead of one. Now the British medical Journal says that the incidence of cancer among those who are tested for prostate cancer and those who are not (rectal exam and PSA) showed no statistical difference.
In other words, testing for prostate cancer doesn’t improve survivability! Rather a shocker as a guy who gets an annual physical, but not entirely surprising. The same type of study was done for Breast cancer and it was showed that survivability didn’t improve for women below the age of 50 (in other words an expensive, intrusive test didn’t help).
I wonder if there will be the same type of outcry there was for the breast cancer testing for women below the age of 50? My guess is that exams (not fun, but part of the annual check up will continue), and that inertia will keep PSA tests on the list of blood test that are done every year by my doctor.
It remains interesting that over time a statistically significant (or insignificant) analysis of medical procedures can be conducted and lead to conclusions to improve treatment (or reduce inefficacies). Still I will have a word with my doctor next June about these tests…