what are your thoughts? will this change the landscape of urology?!?

[gooze]

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2012/...tate-cancer-test-doesnt-save-lives/?hpt=he_c2

this doesn't bode well for urology. do you think they will actually get rid of the psa test?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[DocEspana]

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2012/...tate-cancer-test-doesnt-save-lives/?hpt=he_c2

this doesn't bode well for urology. do you think they will actually get rid of the psa test?

Barely impacts urology at all. This is stating that the PSA test shouldnt be part of the annual screening. IDK how many of you go into your urologist once a year so he can draw blood... your PMD would do that. The powers that be (correctly) noted that the nature of prostate cancer growth and the low specificity of the PSA test means that the morbidity of testing everyone far outweighs the utility and lives saved.

On the other hand it fully supports the PSA test being used in those who have a high risk of development and/or death from it. These people would likely not be followed by the PMD on the matter but would be exactly the kind of people who would be goign to the urologist for it anyway.

Add into all of that this little thought: no urologist is getting rich off of PSA tests. Its not the money maker of the profession. The impact it would have on them is, i'd imagine, very minimal. Urology works the same way ophtho works. Both your penis and your eyes have expiration dates on them around your early 60's. As long as people are living longer than that, the machinery in both organs is going to break down at a steady rate across the entire human population. When you have a guaranteed population for mechanical failure before you even count true pathology, you have a business model that is very resistant to economic fluctuations.